The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist’s ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why (...) it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor–mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy. (shrink)

International students often turn to various sources for help, including writing center tutors, friends, faculty mentors, online sources such as Google translate, and proofreading and editorial services, among others. While receiving help from these sources is both understandable and somewhat expected, what type and level of help is appropriate or ethical is not always clearly defined. The current research study investigates perceptions of faculty and international students at one U.S. university as to what is ethical in academic writing help for (...) international students in 17 different scenarios. Findings suggest that students, far more than faculty, lacked certainty and agreement on whether certain help they may receive is ethical. The two groups’ views also varied on machine translation and the use of for-pay editors. Faculty, in general, had the least agreement on the use of machine translation and the use of a for-pay editing service for sentence- and discourse-level help and expressed that specific contexts and instructor’s expectations should be taken into consideration. Also, perceptions of students from East Asia showed notable differences. We argue that establishing and communicating clear guidelines concerning writing help should be part of any policy of academic integrity and present an “ethicality index” to help begin conversations as each institution, program, or faculty establishes the boundaries of ethical writing help in a specific context. (shrink)

BackgroundDisputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.Main bodyWhen authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials (...) between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals’ authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.ConclusionRather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members. (shrink)