sabrina

Home/Sabrina Leung

About Sabrina Leung

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Sabrina Leung has created 19 blog entries.
Email

Why is keeping original records so important?

Data recording and protection are discussed specially in the Office of Research Integrity’s Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research. (s.6b & s. 6c) It details how hardcopy or electronic evidence should be recorded and stored respectively. These are also emphasised in the policy on research integrity of a number of educational institutions. For example, in the Guidelines for Responsible Conduct of Research, it is stated that “If mistakes are to be corrected, a thin line should be drawn through the erroneous entry so as not

Categories: Duty of Care, Good Research Practices, Proper Data Handling|

You did the research, but do you own the data?

As a researcher, have you ever considered whether you have the ownership to the data you may have complied and based your research on? In the Office of Research Integrity’s Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, the issue of data ownership is named as an unresolved and controversial issue in data management. (Section 6e.) The term ownership in this context entails both the possession of and responsibility for information. The possession implies the control over its access, creation, modification and etc., and the right

Categories: Duty of Care, Proper Data Handling|

What constitutes authorship – a COPE case study

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/what-constitutes-authorship):   Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author Y had drawn two figures for the paper and discussed some of the observations (all made by author X) with author X but the paper did not deal with the thesis research of author Y. After the original paper was returned, requiring extensive revisions, author X revised the paper and

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

References on Authorship

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published a Discussion Document titled 'What constitutes authorship?' drawing upon a variety of sources: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf The COPE Discussion Document recognises that authorship in the legal discipline is: still very much a product of the writing process, and usually by a single individual. Any other form of contribution such as generation of ideas, commenting on a draft, or technical assistance is listed in the Acknowledgments. Traditions in the humanities also differ from some disciplines in the social and natural

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

ICMJE Recommendations: Authorship Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations list 4 criteria for authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html): 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (Section 6), to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference, states the following: Researchers should take responsibility for their contributions to all publications, funding applications, reports and other representations of their research. Lists of authors should include all those and only those who meet applicable authorship criteria.  Researchers should acknowledge in publications the names and roles of those who made significant contributions to the research, including writers, funders, sponsors, and others, but do not meet authorship criteria.

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship Criteria

The Office of Research Integrity's Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: The names that appear at the beginning of a paper serve one important purpose. They let others know who conducted the research and should get credit for it. It is important to know who conducted the research in case there are questions about methods, data, and the interpretation of results. Likewise, the credit derived from publications is used to determine a

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (jointly published by the European Science Foundation and ALL European Academies (ALLEA), and to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: Fairness, in providing proper references and giving due credits to the work of others, in treating colleagues with integrity and honesty. (emphasis added) It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeserved authorship and to deny deserved authorship, or to inadequately allocate credit. Unjustified claimed authorship and ghost authorship are forms of

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct, Research Misconduct|Tags: , , |

University of Edinburgh School of Law: Research Misconduct

"Research Ethics Misconduct The SOL is committed to research of the highest integrity as defined by Universities UK. This requires conduct reflective of: Honesty: Honesty in all aspects of research, including in the presentation of research goals, intentions and findings; in reporting on research methods and procedures; in gathering data; in using and acknowledging the work of other researchers; and in conveying valid interpretations and making justifiable claims based on research findings. Rigour: Research must be in keeping with prevailing disciplinary norms and standards: in

Categories: Honesty, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity, Research Misconduct|Tags: |