| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
EDITORIAL |
Recently, I was challenged by the president of the Poultry Science Association about the ethics of reviewers openly discussing their reviews and the content of papers that they had reviewed. How much are we troubled by breaches in confidentiality? In this editorial, I will discuss issues related to reviewing and other aspects of professional ethics for poultry scientists. In a previous editorial, I addressed the question of what constitutes professional ethics in publishing (Scanes, 2007). Although scientific misconduct brings science itself into disrepute, failures in other aspects of our professional ethics also negatively affect poultry scientists.
 |
Reviewing |
|---|
 TOP Reviewing Other Professional Ethics IssuesREFERENCES |
|---|
"The referee, who is usually among the few genuine experts in a field, is a competitor for those. . . scarce resources. Most scientists have high ethical standards and try not to let their self-interest interfere with their scientific judgment. But every scientist I know has war stories of having been mistreated by anonymous referees" (Goodstein, 2002).
Our responsibilities as a reviewer include the following:
Fairness in reviewing is a critically important professional ethic. As with all papers and proposals we review, a competitor’s work needs to be treated fairly. Similarly, the peer-review process is not the time for revenge for a real or imagined slight (e.g., a combative question of your student at a national meeting). There are clearly actions that a reviewer should not take. For instance, a reviewer should never suppress papers from a scientific competitor. It is obviously unethical to suppress of work critical of your own theory or your company’s product. A further problem is for a reviewer to actively or passively hold up the publication of a competitor’s paper. This might be accomplished by unjustly delaying submission of a review or by "nit-picking the paper to death."
What are the issues related to confidentiality? They include not holding the work of other scientists up to ridicule, amusement, or gossip. Telling friends, colleagues, or students about the paper or review are obviously inappropriate. Even worse is using data or information gleaned from reading a submitted paper or grant proposal. Federal grant agencies insist on confidentiality within the peer-review process, with panel and study section members signing to agree to confidentiality. There is a similar prohibition on breaching the confidentiality of external letters for promotion and tenure.
|
Other Professional Ethics Issues |
|---|
|
TOPReviewingOther Professional Ethics IssuesREFERENCES |
|---|
Respect for People.
How often do we see a student or even a colleague treated in an inappropriate manner? I would respectfully suggest that we treat colleagues and students in the manner in which we would like to be treated. We can all think of our own horror stories of the advisor or senior faculty member who at best could be described as using "tough love" but in fact was simply being abusive with students or junior colleagues. Specific behaviors to be avoided include nonprofessional demeanor (e.g., displays of temper or arrogance), sexual or other forms of harassment, and habitually showing up late.
Honoring our Word.
Once we have agreed to do something, it is essential to do it completely. For instance, if we have contracted to do a study for a sponsoring company, we need to complete it in a timely manner with reports submitted as per the contract. Similarly we may have or other professional obligations that need to be completed in a timely manner. Honoring our word shows respect for others.
Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment.
How often do we worry if we are engaged as a consultant to a company or have significant ownership of stock in the company? This can create a conflict of interest such that there may be pressure to change results of a study to further our own financial interest. A conflict of commitment in a relationship may exist if it is not clear whether we are acting as a consultant or in our capacity as an academic researcher.
Statements to the Media or Policy Makers.
Researchers are not usually trained to talk to the media or to policymakers; as such, many avoid doing so. A very few others may seek the limelight. If we are to influence the public or a national debate, staying silent is not helpful. I believe it is very good to see the Poultry Science Association and FASS putting out press releases on issues of national or international importance. One caveat is that the statements need to be based on good science (Hodges, 2003, 2006).
Breaching Copyright.
This occurs when we place a PDF file of a paper on a Web site and send it to a colleague as an attachment.
Why do we not always follow the highest ethical standard? Is it because we do not know what our professional standards are or because it is easier not to think about them? I would suggest that it is often because we do not want to face the truth. To quote William Shakespeare:
"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPReviewingOther Professional Ethics IssuesREFERENCES |
|---|
Hodges, J. 2006. Conservation of genes and culture: Historical and contemporary issues. Poult. Sci. 85:200–209.
Hodges, J. 2003 Livestock, ethics, and quality of life. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2887–2894
Scanes, C. G. 2007. Editorial: Professional ethics and publishing. Poult. Sci. 86:603–604.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
