Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct.

PURPOSE: In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. METHOD: In Research Ethics III, they review the RCR domains of publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. Whereas the legal definition of research misconduct under federal law pertains mainly to intentional falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, they discuss a host of research practices that raise ethical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The integrity of the scientific record--its accuracy, completeness, and value--ultimately impacts the health and well-being of society. For this reason, scientists are both entrusted and obligated to use the highest standards possible when proposing, performing, reviewing, and reporting research or when educating and mentoring new investigators.

Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)--historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation.

PURPOSE: In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics I, they present a historical overview of the evolution of RCR in the United States then examine the evolution of human and animal experimentation from the birth of scientific medicine through World War II to the present day. METHOD: They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have written this article from a historical perspective because they think all readers interested in RCR should appreciate how the history of science and all the good--and harm--it has produced can inform how researchers practice responsible research in the 21st century and beyond.

Research ethics II: Mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership.

PURPOSE: In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics II, the authors review the RCR domains of mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership. METHOD: They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students. CONCLUSIONS: The authors close by urging readers to stay abreast of the manifold ethics issues facing today's community of scientists, policymakers, and research institutions, and to adhere to best practices as they evolve.

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.

Lip kinematics for /p/ and /b/ production during whispered and voiced speech.

In the absence of voicing, the discrimination of "voiced" and "voiceless" stop consonants in whispered speech relies on such acoustic cues as burst duration and amplitude, and formant transition characteristics. The articulatory processes that generate these features of whispered speech remain speculative. This preliminary investigation examines the articulatory kinematics differences between whispered /p/ and /b/, which may underlie the acoustic differences previously reported for these sounds. Computerized video-tracking methods were used to evaluate kinematic differences between voiced and voiceless stops. Seven subjects produced the target utterances "my papa puppy" and "my baba puppy" in voiced and whispered speech modes. The results revealed that mean peak opening and closing velocities for /b/ were significantly greater than those for /p/ during whispered speech. No differences in peak velocity for either oral closing or opening were observed during voiced speech. The maximum distance between the lips for oral opening for /b/ was significantly greater than for /p/ during whisper, whereas no difference was observed during voiced speech. These data supported the suggestion that whispered speech and voiced speech rely on distinct motor control processes.