<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Professional Responsibilities">

	<head>
		<title>Individual responsibilities in teams and collaborations</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">

		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="pro_1_30"
				current-module="Professional Responsibilities"
				page-title="Individual responsibilities in teams and collaborations"
				screen-time="4"
				screen-time-period="mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<p>Research began as a largely solitary endeavour, with a lone investigator designing and
								conducting research and publishing single-authored papers. Over time, as research became
								more complex, researchers began working in teams. A team can consist of only two or three
								researchers, or could be much larger.</p>
							<p>Team research is becoming increasingly common, even in fields that were traditionally
								dominated by the lone investigator. Digital projects in the arts and humanities are now
								often team projects, and large social science projects can require a high level of
								collaboration.</p>

							<h3>Common responsibilities</h3>

							<p>For team projects to succeed, team members must work well together. While there is no single
								formula for successful team research, many problems could be avoided if everyone on the team
								embraced three common responsibilities:</p>

							<ul>
								<li>Treat other team members equally, fairly and respectfully</li>
								<li>Take steps to foster a supportive research environment</li>
								<li>Share expectations and meet deadlines.</li>
							</ul>

							<h3>Role responsibilities</h3>

							<p>Although there is a great deal of variation in how research teams are organised, team members
								generally occupy one of five key roles. </p>

							<instructional-text>
								<p>Click first on the role, and then on the description that best appears to match it. Once
									you have correctly matched a pair, it will move to the top of the activity. </p>
							</instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider each role and decide which description best appears to match it. Once you have matched each pair, move on to find out if you were correct.</p></instructional-text-accessible>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<matching>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Principal investigator (PI)/project leader</match-left>
									<match-right>Assumes ultimate responsibility for all aspects of a project.
									</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Co-investigator</match-left>
									<match-right>Assumes responsibility for some aspects of a project (including some of the
										overall management). </match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Research staff (e.g. postdoctoral fellow)</match-left>
									<match-right>Assumes responsibility for the research tasks assigned to them, but not the
										overall management of the project.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Technical staff</match-left>
									<match-right>Provides skilled support for research projects. Generally has training to
										run specialist equipment, conduct surveys or prepare translations.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Administrative staff</match-left>
									<match-right>Provides support for hiring research and technical staff, ordering
										equipment, managing budgets and keeping track of when approval forms or reports are
										due.
									</match-right>
								</matching-set>
							</matching>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<p>The titles assigned to the members of a research team vary and are often dependent on
								employment/hiring rules. Whatever the members of a team are called, it is important for all
								team members to know their role and the responsibilities associated with it.</p>

							<h3>The impact of individual actions</h3>

							<p>However roles are assigned in your team or collaboration, it is critical that all the
								necessary responsibilities are fulfilled. A team or collaboration can easily become
								compromised by individuals' ambitions, competition or pressure to produce.</p>

							<instructional-text>
								<p>To reflect on the different ways in which individuals' choices and actions can have
									implications for a team or collaboration, choose a pathway through the activity below.
									Consider the ramifications of each decision, and how it either allows the collaboration
									to run smoothly or presents problems to be dealt with later. To follow another pathway
									through the activity, click "Main menu" to start again.</p>
							</instructional-text>

							<instructional-text-accessible><p>To reflect on the different ways in which individuals' choices and actions can have implications for a team or collaboration, work through the following activity. Consider the ramifications of each decision, and how it either allows the collaboration to run smoothly or presents problems to be dealt with later. You can then choose to follow a different pathway by returning to the beginning of the activity. </p></instructional-text-accessible>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>

							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<action-maze restart-label="Main menu" back="false" show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<action-panel panel="0" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>Two different research groups come together to understand aspects of the sociology of
										drug use. The project involves analysing drug traces in city waste water from
										various socioeconomic zones of a city. Group 1 has expertise in drug and water
										chemistry, while Group 2 is formed of sociologists. The two groups come together to
										form a team after the two principal investigators (PIs) are jointly awarded a
										research grant.</p>
									<p>At an initial meeting of the team, a senior postdoctoral fellow suggests that it
										would be useful to have a joint planning session for all the team members. How do
										the PIs respond?</p>
									<action-link goto-panel="1">Both the PIs agree that this is a good idea. </action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="2">The PIs do not think this is needed. </action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="3">The PIs have differing positions &ndash; the leader of the
										chemistry group thinks it's unnecessary, but the leader of the sociology group
										considers it a good idea.</action-link>
								</action-panel>

								<action-panel panel="1" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>A joint planning meeting is held, with both PIs and most of the other team members
										present. The meeting is used to discuss and agree on the scope of the project, a
										timeline for delivery, and how data and authorship will be managed. Care is taken to
										ensure that the resulting plan complies with institutional policy and journal
										guidelines. The plan is communicated to those who were unable to attend the meeting.
									</p>
									<p>Two years later, the collaboration appears to be going well and the first paper is
										being written. One of the PhD students becomes upset because they expected to be
										first author on this paper. What happens next?</p>
									<action-link goto-panel="4">The PIs are made aware of the situation and review how
										authorship should be assigned in line with what was agreed previously.
									</action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5">The PhD student goes to the PIs and explains their concerns.
									</action-link>
								</action-panel>

								<action-panel panel="2" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PIs consider a planning session unnecessary, feeling decisions can be made as and
										when they are required. </p>
									<p>Two years later, the team needs to start preparing work for publication. There is no
										agreement about who will be responsible for each of the planned publications, which
										is creating tension. One of the PhD students becomes upset because they expected to
										be first author on the initial publication about the research. A postdoctoral fellow
										disagrees, claiming they deserve the first author credit. What happens next?</p>
									<action-link goto-panel="6">The PhD student feels too junior to escalate their concern,
										and reluctantly agrees to be listed as second author.</action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="7">The PhD student raises their situation with the PIs, and is
										told that they should let the postdoctoral fellow be listed as first author because
										they need publications in order to find their next role.</action-link>
								</action-panel>

								<action-panel panel="3" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PI leading the sociology group decides to plan a session anyway, inviting
										everyone from the chemistry group. Only about half of the chemistry group attends
										(the PI of the chemistry team is absent) &ndash; nonetheless, those who do attend
										are
										still able to determine the scope of the project, establish a timeline for delivery,
										and agree on how data and authorship will be managed. The resulting plan is
										communicated to everyone who did not attend, and no objections are raised.</p>
									<p>Two years later, the team needs to start finalising the project and preparing work
										for publication. The first paper is being written about the project. One of the PhD
										students from the sociology group becomes upset because they expected to be listed
										as first author on the paper; however, a postdoctoral fellow from the chemistry
										group insists that they have contributed more to the project and should be listed as
										first author. What happens next?</p>
									<action-link goto-panel="8">The PhD student and the postdoctoral fellow each complain to
										their own PI. The PI of the sociology group contacts the PI of the chemistry group
										and says they should review how authorship will be assigned in line with what was
										agreed at the early planning meeting. The chemistry PI agrees.</action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9">The PhD student and the postdoctoral fellow each complain to
										their own PI. The sociology PI contacts the chemistry PI and says they should review
										how to assign authorship in line with the plan. The chemistry PI disagrees, stating
										that they never liked the plan to begin with; instead, they argue that the
										postdoctoral fellow should be listed as first author because they need publications
										to secure their next role.</action-link>
								</action-panel>

								<action-panel panel="4" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PIs are doing the right thing. As a team, they have set a clear plan to refer to
										when making decisions, allowing a proper evaluation of the authorship situation. As
										well as consulting the plan, the team should also be guided by institutional policy
										and journal guidelines. The PhD student should know they are able to raise the issue
										and can expect it to be dealt with fairly, with the listed first author being the
										person determined to have contributed the most to the project. </p>
								</action-panel>
								<action-panel panel="5" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PhD student has done the right thing by raising this with the PIs. Because there
										is a clear plan, the PhD student should feel confident that they can raise the
										problem and expect it to be dealt with fairly &ndash; the listed first author should
										be the person determined to have contributed the most to the project. As well as
										consulting the plan, the team should refer to institutional policy and journal
										guidelines.</p>
								</action-panel>
								<action-panel panel="6" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PhD student should have discussed the situation with the PIs, and should not feel
										pressured into giving up their first author credit. In the absence of clear
										guidelines for the specific collaboration, the team should be guided by
										institutional policy and journal guidelines. There should be a proper evaluation of
										the authorship situation to ensure that authorship is awarded to the person who
										contributed the most.</p>
								</action-panel>
								<action-panel panel="7" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PIs have given bad advice. Instead of dismissing the PhD student's concerns, the
										PIs should have undertaken a proper evaluation of the authorship situation, awarding
										authorship to the person determined to have contributed the most. In the absence of
										a clear plan for the team, it should be guided by institutional policy and journal
										guidelines. </p>
								</action-panel>
								<action-panel panel="8" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The PIs are doing the right thing. Even though it has not always received a consensus
										from the whole collaboration, the PIs have a clear plan to refer to. The team should
										also be guided by institutional policy and journal guidelines. The PhD student
										should be able to trust that they can raise the issue and expect it to be dealt with
										fairly, with the listed first author being the person determined to have contributed
										the most. </p>
								</action-panel>
								<action-panel panel="9" is-white-padded="true">
									<p>The chemistry PI is incorrect in their response. If they disagreed with the plan that
										was determined at the start of the project, this should have been clearly
										communicated. The PhD student should be able to feel confident that the PIs will
										undertake a proper evaluation of the authorship situation, awarding first author
										status to the person who contributed the most. The team should also be guided by
										institutional policy and journal guidelines.</p>
								</action-panel>
							</action-maze>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Question 1:</h4>
								<p>Two different research groups come together to understand
									aspects of the sociology of drug use. The project involves analysing drug traces in city
									waste water from various socioeconomic zones of a city. Group 1 has expertise in drug
									and water chemistry, while Group 2 is formed of sociologists. The two groups come
									together to form a team after the two principal investigators (PIs) are jointly awarded
									a research grant.</p>
								<p>At an initial meeting of the team, a senior postdoctoral fellow suggests that it would be
									useful to have a joint planning session for all the team members.</p>
									<p><strong>How do the PIs respond?</strong></p>
								<ul>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 1:</strong> Both the PIs agree that this is a good idea. <strong>[Proceed
											to Question 2]</strong>
									</li>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 2: </strong> The PIs do not think this is needed.<strong> [Proceed to
										Question 3]</strong>
									</li>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 3:</strong> The PIs have differing positions &ndash; the leader of the
											chemistry group thinks it's unnecessary, but the leader of the sociology group
											considers it a good idea. <strong>[Proceed to Question 4]</strong>
									</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2:</h4>
								<p>A joint planning meeting is held, with both PIs and most of
									the other team members present. The meeting is used to discuss and agree on the scope of
									the project, a timeline for delivery, and how data and authorship will be managed. Care
									is taken to ensure that the resulting plan complies with institutional policy and
									journal guidelines. The plan is communicated to those who were unable to attend the
									meeting. </p>
								<p>Two years later, the collaboration appears to be going well and the first paper is being
									written. One of the PhD students becomes upset because they expected to be first author
									on this paper.</p>
								<p><strong>What happens next?</strong></p>
								<ul>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 1: </strong>The PIs are made aware of the situation and review how
											authorship should be assigned in line with what was agreed previously. <strong>[Proceed
											to Feedback 1]</strong>
									</li>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 2: </strong>The PhD student goes to the PIs and explains their
											concerns. <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 2]</strong>
									</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3:</h4>
								<p>The PIs consider a planning session unnecessary, feeling
									decisions can be made as and when they are required. </p>
								<p>Two years later, the team needs to start preparing work for publication. There is no
									agreement about who will be responsible for each of the planned publications, which is
									creating tension. One of the PhD students becomes upset because they expected to be
									first author on the initial publication about the research. A postdoctoral fellow
									disagrees, claiming they deserve the first author credit.</p>
									<p><strong>What happens next?</strong></p>
								<ul>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 1: </strong>The PhD student feels too junior to escalate their
											concern, and reluctantly agrees to be listed as second author. <strong>[Proceed to
											Feedback 3]</strong>
									</li>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 2: </strong>The PhD student raises their situation with the PIs,
											and is told that they should let the postdoctoral fellow be listed as first
											author because they need publications in order to find their next role. <strong>[Proceed
											to Feedback 4]</strong>
									</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4:</h4>
								<p>The PI leading the sociology group decides to plan a session
									anyway, inviting everyone from the chemistry group. Only about half of the chemistry
									group attends (the PI of the chemistry team is absent) &ndash; nonetheless, those who do
									attend are still able to determine the scope of the project, establish a timeline for
									delivery, and agree on how data and authorship will be managed. The resulting plan is
									communicated to everyone who did not attend, and no objections are raised.</p>
								<p>Two years later, the team needs to start finalising the project and preparing work for
									publication. The first paper is being written about the project. One of the PhD students
									from the sociology group becomes upset because they expected to be listed as first
									author on the paper; however, a postdoctoral fellow from the chemistry group insists
									that they have contributed more to the project and should be listed as first author.</p>
									<p><strong>What happens next?</strong></p>
								<ul>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 1: </strong>The PhD student and the postdoctoral fellow each
											complain to their own PI. The PI of the sociology group contacts the PI of the
											chemistry group and says they should review how authorship will be assigned in
											line with what was agreed at the early planning meeting. The chemistry PI
											agrees. <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 5]</strong>
									</li>
									<li>
										<strong>Answer 2: </strong>The PhD student and the postdoctoral fellow each
											complain to their own PI. The sociology PI contacts the chemistry PI and says
											they should review how to assign authorship in line with the plan. The chemistry
											PI disagrees, stating that they never liked the plan to begin with; instead,
											they argue that the postdoctoral fellow should be listed as first author because
											they need publications to secure their next role. <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 6]</strong>
									</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 1:</h4>
								<p>The PIs are doing the right thing. As a team, they have set a clear plan to refer to when
									making decisions, allowing a proper evaluation of the authorship situation. As well as
									consulting the plan, the team should also be guided by institutional policy and journal
									guidelines. The PhD student should know they are able to raise the issue and can expect
									it to be dealt with fairly, with the listed first author being the person determined to
									have contributed the most to the project. </p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 2:</h4>
								<p>The PhD student has done the right thing by raising this with the PIs. Because there is a
									clear plan, the PhD student should feel confident that they can raise the problem and
									expect it to be dealt with fairly &ndash; the listed first author should be the person
									determined to have contributed the most to the project. As well as consulting the plan,
									the team should refer to institutional policy and journal guidelines.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 3:</h4>
								<p>The PhD student should have discussed the situation with the PIs, and should not feel
									pressured into giving up their first author credit. In the absence of clear guidelines
									for the specific collaboration, the team should be guided by institutional policy and
									journal guidelines. There should be a proper evaluation of the authorship situation to
									ensure that authorship is awarded to the person who contributed the most.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 4:</h4>
								<p>The PIs have given bad advice. Instead of dismissing the PhD student's concerns, the PIs
									should have undertaken a proper evaluation of the authorship situation, awarding
									authorship to the person determined to have contributed the most. In the absence of a
									clear plan for the team, it should be guided by institutional policy and journal
									guidelines. </p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 5:</h4>
								<p>The PIs are doing the right thing. Even though it has not always received a consensus
									from the whole collaboration, the PIs have a clear plan to refer to. The team should
									also be guided by institutional policy and journal guidelines. The PhD student should be
									able to trust that they can raise the issue and expect it to be dealt with fairly, with
									the listed first author being the person determined to have contributed the most. </p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 6:</h4>
								<p>The chemistry PI is incorrect in their response. If they disagreed with the plan that was
									determined at the start of the project, this should have been clearly communicated. The
									PhD student should be able to feel confident that the PIs will undertake a proper
									evaluation of the authorship situation, awarding first author status to the person who
									contributed the most. The team should also be guided by institutional policy and journal
									guidelines.</p>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->

						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<p>The various pathways through this activity demonstrate the importance of every member of a
								team or collaboration fulfilling their responsibilities, regardless of whether they are the
								PI or just starting their research career as a PhD student. While it should be possible to
								resolve most issues within the structure of your team or collaboration, you can approach
								your supervisor &ndash; or, if your supervisor is also involved in your collaboration and
								you want
								advice from an external source, your institutional research office &ndash; for advice if you
								feel
								you require extra support.</p>
							<p>For some real-life examples of how the failure of team members to meet their responsibilities
								can have serious ramifications, see the "Useful links" pod.</p>

						</page-content-main>

						<page-content-sidebar>

							<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
							<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<hosted-link id="RI_INT_pro_1_30">
										<p>For insights into what can happen when team members do not fulfil their responsibilities, access the links below:</p>
										<ul>
											<li><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2002/07/elements-116-and-118-were-sham" target="_blank">Elements 116 and 118 Were a Sham</a></li>
											<li><a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/03/30/a_young_lab_worker_a_professor_and_a_deadly_accident.html" target="_blank">A Young Lab Worker, a Professor and a Deadly Accident</a></li>
											<li><a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/chief-academic-officer-accused-in-ongoing-research-scandal-at-ucl-64408" target="_blank">Chief Academic Officer Accused in Ongoing Research Scandal at UCL</a></li>
										</ul>
									</hosted-link>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->

						</page-content-sidebar>

						<page-content-main>

							<h3>Summary</h3>

							<p>Working as part of a research team does not affect your responsibility to adhere to the basic virtues of good research conduct, as they apply from planning through to publication. It does, however, add the additional responsibility of having to remain aware of how your conduct affects others.</p>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>

				</page-container>
			</base-container

		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->

		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
				el: "#app",
				data: {},
				mounted: function () {
					var core = document.createElement('script');
					core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
					document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

					var project = document.createElement('script');
					project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
					document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
				}
			});
		</script>

	</body>

</html>