Ethical principles associated with the publication of research in ASHA's scholarly journals: importance and adequacy of coverage.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this 2-part study was to determine the importance of specific topics relating to publication ethics and adequacy of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) policies regarding these topics. METHOD: A 56-item Web-based survey was sent to (a) ASHA journal editors, associate editors, and members of the Publications Board (Group 1); (b) authors, reviewers, and members of ASHA's Board of Ethics (Group 2); and (c) a random sample of the ASHA membership, characterized as journal readers (Group 3). The survey contained 4 questions related to ethical principles associated with the publication of research: (a) In regard to scientific integrity in research publications in general, how important is the issue of [topic]? (b) Should ASHA publication policies address this issue? (c) Do ASHA policies address this issue? (d) If yes, how adequately do ASHA policies address this issue? A second study evaluated the contents of ASHA's publication policy documents in regard to their coverage of the survey topics. RESULTS: Results indicated many of the topics deemed most important by all groups were included in ASHA's publication policy documents; other topics, although included, were not adequately addressed. CONCLUSIONS: ASHA needs a single, unifying publication policy document, and increased education of all groups in the realm of ethics in the publication process is indicated.

Responsible conduct of research in communication sciences and disorders: faculty and student perceptions.

PURPOSE: Two Web-based surveys (Surveys I and II) were used to assess perceptions of faculty and students in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) regarding the responsible conduct of research (RCR). METHOD: Survey questions addressed 9 RCR domains thought important to the responsible conduct of research: (a) human subjects protections; (b) research involving animals; (c) publication practices and responsible authorship; (d) mentor/trainee responsibilities; (e) collaborative science; (f) peer review; (g) data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership; (h) conflicts of interest; and (i) research misconduct. Respondents rated each of 37 topics for importance and for sufficiency of instructional coverage. RESULTS: Respondents to Survey I were 137 faculty members from 68 (26%) of the 261 graduate programs in CSD. By comparison, 237 students from 39 (15%) programs responded to Survey II. Data about the importance and sufficiency of coverage of each of the 37 items were transformed into z scores to reveal relative ratings among the 37 topics. Data presentations were grouped for topics in each of the 9 RCR domains. Ratings indicated the relatively high importance assigned among the 37 topics by CSD faculty and students. Sufficiency of coverage of those same topics received lower ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The results of these surveys support the notion that students in CSD perceive that they are receiving information about RCR. The data pertaining to sufficiency of coverage provide a basis for improving instruction in this important aspect of research education.