<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Scholarly Publication">

	<head>
		<title>Application</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="spu_1_90"
				current-module = "Scholarly Publication"
				page-title = "Application"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>
							
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION START -->
							<pod variant="d" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Module evaluation</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Module evaluation (optional)</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<p><a href="https://www.epigeum.com/downloads/hosted_content/RI_INT/survey/ri_uk_survey.html" target="_blank">Click here</a> to help develop and improve this course by providing some brief feedback (anonymously, of course). Please note that completing this survey is entirely optional. However, your input would be very welcome.</p>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>
						
						<page-content-main>
						
							<p>Scholarly publication is a complex process that varies considerably from field to field. Some of the variations include:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li>Type of publication: research paper, book chapter, monograph, etc.</li>
								<li>Length of publication: 1 to 40 pages or more</li>
								<li>Review time: a few days to many months</li>
								<li>Publication time: a week to over a year</li>
								<li>Technical requirements: brief references to detailed footnotes or endnotes</li>
								<li>Authorship order: the most important author can be first or last.</li>
							</ol>
							
							<p>As you plan and work your way through the publication process, it is important to get to know the requirements and best practices for your field of research.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Work your way through the scenarios explained below and answer the questions posed to check your understanding of some of the difficult choices researchers have to make when they publish their research.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Work your way through the following scenarios and answer the questions posed to check your understanding of some of the difficult choices researchers have to make when they publish their research. You can then move on for further questions and feedback.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
						
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<action-maze show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<!-- question 1 -->
								<action-panel panel="0">
									<action-question>
										<p>The next milestone in your career (e.g. completing your PhD, applying for a postdoc, getting a job, meeting the deadline for a major fellowship) is rapidly approaching. You feel your CV is thin and would like to add at least one more publication before your work is evaluated. Your current project has gone well and is almost ready for publication.
										<br><br>As you are considering your next steps, this email message appears in your inbox:</p>
										<text-block>
											<p>Dear colleague,
											<br><br>We are pleased to announce that the Journal of Innovative Research has just broadened its scope to include [your field of study]. We are interested in publishing research that challenges traditional models and opens new approaches to innovation. Our open-access format will allow global access to your work in unprecedented ways. Our review time is usually less than two weeks. As you are a leading researcher in your field, we would be pleased to receive a manuscript reporting on your latest work.
											<br><br>Maleivochic Abrolavic, Editor in Chief
											<br><br>Journal of Innovative Research</p>
										</text-block>
										<p><strong>What would you do next?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="1"><p>Delete the email</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="2"><p>Talk with a trusted colleague to get advice</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="3"><p>Quickly draft and submit a manuscript </p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 2 -->
								<action-panel panel="1">
									<action-question>
										<p>Good choice. There is a high chance that the message you received is from a predatory journal. Unless you know the editor personally or are confident that the journal is legitimate (for example, by using a resource like Scopus), you should just delete the message. If you have doubts, talk about them with a trusted colleague.
										<br><br>Assuming you don't take this easy but irresponsible path to publication, you need to find a new journal.
										<br><br><strong>Which of these options would you be most likely to select?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A very high Impact Factor journal</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 3 -->
								<action-panel panel="2">
									<action-question>
										<p>Good choice. There is a more than reasonable chance that the message you received is from a predatory journal. Unless you know the editor personally or are confident that the journal is legitimate (such as by checking using a resource like Scopus), talking with a trusted colleague is a good idea. In all likelihood, you will be advised to delete the message.
										<br><br>Assuming you don't take this easy but irresponsible path to publication, you need to find a new journal.
										<br><br><strong>Which of these options would you be most likely to select?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A very high Impact Factor journal</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 4 -->
								<action-panel panel="3">
									<action-question>
										<p>Two days after submitting your manuscript, you receive the following message:</p>
										<text-block>
											<p>Dear colleague,
											<br><br>After extensive review, we is pleased to accept your manuscript for publication. It will be available as a preprint immediately and formally published on our next edition.
											<br><br>To cover the costs of publication, please link to <a>this page</a> to send us a payment of &pound;1,000. As soon as your payment received, your article will be published.
											<br><br>The <em>Journal of Innovative Research</em> is honoured to have an author of your reputation publishing in our journal and would welcomed future submissions either to our journal or our companion Journal of Novel Methods.
											<br><br>Maleivochic Abrolavic, Editor in Chief
											<br><br>Journal of Innovative Research</p>
										</text-block>
										<p><strong>How would you respond to this message?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="4"><p>Send the &pound;1,000 and add the publication to your CV</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>Conclude that this message is from a predatory journal and start looking for another journal</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 5 -->
								<action-panel panel="4">
									<action-question>
										<p>More than likely, you just spent &pound;1,000 on a chance to publish in a predatory journal; worse still, by listing the publication on your CV you have put yourself at risk of being accused of irresponsible conduct. Given the dubious nature of the publication, it is unlikely that your manuscript will be peer reviewed. If you had doubts after the first message, the poor writing in the second message should have confirmed your suspicions.  
										<br><br>If you list the publication as a peer-reviewed article in your CV, you are providing misleading information about your credentials. This is irresponsible and will not advance your career in the long run.   
										<br><br>The correct course of action would have been to start looking for a different journal. A quick review of the journals in your area points to three different publication options.
										<br><br><strong>Which option would you be most likely to select from the three below?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A very high Impact Factor journal</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="5"><p>A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 6 -->
								<action-panel panel="5">
									<action-question>
										<p>It can be helpful to have a journal in mind when you begin to draft a paper, but the final choice must be guided by your findings. Are they significant enough for a top journal in your field of research? Do they have broad enough significance to capture the attention of journals such as <em>Science</em> and <em>Nature</em>, which accept fewer than 1 in every 20 of the manuscripts they receive?
										<br><br>Having made a tentative selection, you draft your manuscript in preparation for submission. Before submitting it, you feel you need to show it to your supervisor or a senior colleague as a final check. When you get the manuscript back with a few minor corrections, it includes a note written on the front that reads:</p>
										<text-block><p>As the head of this entire research project, I should be listed as last author.</p></text-block>
										<p><strong>How would you respond?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="6"><p>List the person as an author</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="7"><p>Ignore the note and do not add the person's name</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="8"><p>Check to see if the person deserved authorship credit</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 7 -->
								<action-panel panel="6">
									<action-question>
										<p>This is not the best choice. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contribution to the work, not job titles. Supervisors, laboratory heads and project team leaders do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE.
										<br><br>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, that person is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way.
										<br><br><strong>Taking these facts into consideration, what do you do next?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Add the person's name as an author</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Ignore the note and omit the person's name</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Seek advice from an independent source</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 8 -->
								<action-panel panel="7">
									<action-question>
										<p>This decision may be too strong at this stage, though you would be right to reject the idea that a senior colleague is automatically entitled to an authorship credit. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contributions to the work, not job titles. Supervisors, laboratory heads, and project team leaders do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE. Instead of denying the senior colleague an authorship credit outright, you should check to see whether they deserve credit.
										<br><br>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, the person in question is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way.
										<br><br><strong>Taking these facts into consideration, what would you do next?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Add the person's name as an author</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Ignore the note and omit the person's name</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Seek advice from an independent source</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 9 -->
								<action-panel panel="8">
									<action-question>
										<p>Good choice. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contribution to the project, not job title. Laboratory heads do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE.
										<br><br>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, the person in question is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way.
										<br><br><strong>Taking these facts into consideration, what would you do next?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Add the person's name as an author</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Ignore the note and omit the person's name</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="9"><p>Seek advice from an independent source</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 10 -->
								<action-panel panel="9">
									<action-question>
										<p>This is a situation that calls for independent advice. Adding an unqualified author is irresponsible and could be considered misconduct. Ignoring the wishes of a senior colleague could adversely influence your career. You might consider talking with the colleague, but if the discussion does not go well this could make the situation worse.
										<br><br>Most universities have staff and offices that advise on situations such as this. Get advice, if for no other reason than to have someone to back you up if questions are raised later.
										<br><br>With this difficult situation hopefully resolved, you send your manuscript off. A reasonable time later, you receive a message saying that, following three reviews of your manuscript, it has been recommended for publication on the condition that you rewrite the abstract to place more emphasis on the importance of your findings and less on the limitations of your research.
										<br><br><strong>Would you make this change?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="10"><p>Yes</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="11"><p>No</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 11 -->
								<action-panel panel="10">
									<action-question>
										<p>Before you make this change, you should consider your responsibilities as an author, particularly in relation to honesty and accuracy.
										<br><br><strong>How might it be dishonest or inaccurate to make the requested changes to the abstract?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>The claims of importance might not be supported by the findings</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>Other researchers might not be able to reproduce your research</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>It could improperly inflate the journal's Impact Factor</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 12 -->
								<action-panel panel="11">
									<action-question>
										<p>Editors do sometimes ask for changes that would not be responsible.
										<br><br><strong>How might it be dishonest or inaccurate to make the requested changes to the abstract?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>The claims of importance might not be supported by the findings</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>Other researchers might not be able to reproduce your research</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>It could improperly inflate the journal's Impact Factor</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 13 -->
								<action-panel panel="12">
									<action-question>
										<p>If you rewrite the abstract to place less emphasis on the limitations of your research, your claims of importance might not be supported by the findings. Do not make changes just to get published. Only make changes that are justified and improve the article.
										<br><br>Once you work through the changes with the editor, your article is finally published. You add the publication to your CV and move on to your next project. You feel that everything is wrapped up until the journal editor informs you that they have received information suggesting that some of the material in your recently published article is plagiarised.  
										<br><br>As you are a responsible researcher, this should come as an unpleasant and unanticipated surprise. What could you possibly have done wrong? Before you respond, you run through a checklist to see what you did to avoid plagiarism. Did you:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Set out all direct quotes in quotation marks or as block quotations?</li> 
											<li>Add citations immediately after the quoted text? </li>
											<li>Provide a specific source for each quotation?</li>
											<li>Provide a citation and reference when paraphrasing material from another source? </li>
											<li>Make sure that readers know that paraphrased material was the work of others? </li>
											<li>Check any material written by co-authors to make sure it was not plagiarised?</li>
										</ul>
										<p>Review the questions on the list above and choose the response below that best reflects your own practices; you will then be taken to a screen with advice on what to do next.</p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="13"><p>Answered "no" to at least one question on the list</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="14"><p>Answered "yes" to all the questions on the list</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 1 -->
								<action-panel panel="13">
									<action-question>
										<p>If you answered "no" to any of the questions, then you might have located the source of your problem. For one reason or another, the wording of or work from another source has made its way into your publication. If this happens, you should work with your editor to resolve the problem. These are not pleasant situations. You may need to issue a correction, or, if the plagiarism is extensive, a retraction could be required. As you work through the problem, keep others informed.
										<br><br>Fortunately, if you take your publication responsibilities seriously, you should be able to avoid the problems set out in this activity or know how to deal with them successfully.</p>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 2 -->
								<action-panel panel="14">
									<action-question>
										<p>If you answered "yes" to all of the questions, is there anything you could have done wrong? You may have noticed that we did not ask if you could have plagiarised from yourself. Self-plagiarism, also called redundant publication, is a problem. If you have published something before, you cannot publish it again as an original publication. There are legitimate reasons to publish the same findings or argument in more than one journal, but you must make sure you acknowledge the original publication to avoid being accused of self-plagiarism.
										<br><br>Fortunately, if you take your publication responsibilities seriously, you should be able to avoid the problems set out in this activity or know how to deal with them successfully.</p>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
							</action-maze>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Question 1:</h4>
								<p>The next milestone in your career (e.g. completing your PhD, applying for a postdoc, getting a job, meeting the deadline for a major fellowship) is rapidly approaching. You feel your CV is thin and would like to add at least one more publication before your work is evaluated. Your current project has gone well and is almost ready for publication.</p>
								<p>As you are considering your next steps, this email message appears in your inbox:</p>
								<text-block>
									<p>Dear colleague,</p>
									<p>We are pleased to announce that the Journal of Innovative Research has just broadened its scope to include [your field of study]. We are interested in publishing research that challenges traditional models and opens new approaches to innovation. Our open-access format will allow global access to your work in unprecedented ways. Our review time is usually less than two weeks. As you are a leading researcher in your field, we would be pleased to receive a manuscript reporting on your latest work.</p>
									<p>Maleivochic Abrolavic, Editor in Chief</p>
									<p>Journal of Innovative Research</p>
								</text-block>
								<p>What would you do next?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Delete the email <strong>[Proceed to Question 2]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Talk with a trusted colleague to get advice <strong>[Proceed to Question 3]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> Quickly draft and submit a manuscript <strong>[Proceed to Question 4]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2:</h4>
								<p>Good choice. There is a high chance that the message you received is from a predatory journal. Unless you know the editor personally or are confident that the journal is legitimate (for example, by using a resource like Scopus), you should just delete the message. If you have doubts, talk about them with a trusted colleague.</p>
								<p>Assuming you don't take this easy but irresponsible path to publication, you need to find a new journal. Which of these options would you be most likely to select?</p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1:</strong> A very high Impact Factor journal <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2:</strong> A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 3:</strong> A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3:</h4>
								<p>Good choice. There is a more than reasonable chance that the message you received is from a predatory journal. Unless you know the editor personally or are confident that the journal is legitimate (such as by checking using a resource like Scopus), talking with a trusted colleague is a good idea. In all likelihood, you will be advised to delete the message.</p>
								<p>Assuming you don't take this easy but irresponsible path to publication, you need to find a new journal. Which of these options would you be most likely to select?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> A very high Impact Factor journal <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4:</h4>
								<p>Two days after submitting your manuscript, you receive the following message:</p>
								<text-block>
									<p>Dear colleague,</p>
									<p>After extensive review, we is pleased to accept your manuscript for publication. It will be available as a preprint immediately and formally published on our next edition.</p>
									<p>To cover the costs of publication, please link to this page to send us a payment of &pound;1,000. As soon as your payment received, your article will be published.</p>
									<p>The Journal of Innovative Research is honoured to have an author of your reputation publishing in our journal and would welcomed future submissions either to our journal or our companion Journal of Novel Methods.</p>
									<p>Maleivochic Abrolavic, Editor in Chief</p>
									<p>Journal of Innovative Research</p>
								</text-block>
								<p>How would you respond to this message?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Send the &pound;1,000 and add the publication to your CV <strong>[Proceed to Question 5]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Conclude that this message is from a predatory journal and start looking for another journal <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 5:</h4>
								<p>More than likely, you just spent &pound;1,000 on a chance to publish in a predatory journal; worse still, by listing the publication on your CV you have put yourself at risk of being accused of irresponsible conduct. Given the dubious nature of the publication, it is unlikely that your manuscript will be peer reviewed. If you had doubts after the first message, the poor writing in the second message should have confirmed your suspicions.</p>
								<p>If you list the publication as a peer-reviewed article in your CV, you are providing misleading information about your credentials. This is irresponsible and will not advance your career in the long run.</p>
								<p>The correct course of action would have been to start looking for a different journal. A quick review of the journals in your area points to three different publication options. Which option would you be most likely to select from the three below?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> A very high Impact Factor journal <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> A top journal in my general research area that is read by a broad range of researchers <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> A speciality journal read primarily by specialists working in my narrow field of research <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 6:</h4>
								<p>It can be helpful to have a journal in mind when you begin to draft a paper, but the final choice must be guided by your findings. Are they significant enough for a top journal in your field of research? Do they have broad enough significance to capture the attention of journals such as <em>Science</em> and <em>Nature</em>, which accept fewer than 1 in every 20 of the manuscripts they receive?</p>
								<p>Having made a tentative selection, you draft your manuscript in preparation for submission. Before submitting it, you feel you need to show it to your supervisor or a senior colleague as a final check. When you get the manuscript back with a few minor corrections, it includes a note written on the front that reads:</p>
								<text-block>
									<p><em>As the head of this entire research project, I should be listed as last author.</em></p>
								</text-block>
								<p>How would you respond?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> List the person as an author <strong>[Proceed to Question 7]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Ignore the note and do not add the person's name <strong>[Proceed to Question 8]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> Check to see if the person deserved authorship credit <strong>[Proceed to Question 9]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 7:</h4>
								<p>This is not the best choice. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contribution to the work, not job titles. Supervisors, laboratory heads and project team leaders do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE.</p>
								<p>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, that person is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way. Taking these facts into consideration, what do you do next?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Add the person's name as an author <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Ignore the note and omit the person's name <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> Seek advice from an independent source <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 8:</h4>
								<p>This decision may be too strong at this stage, though you would be right to reject the idea that a senior colleague is automatically entitled to an authorship credit. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contributions to the work, not job titles. Supervisors, laboratory heads, and project team leaders do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE. Instead of denying the senior colleague an authorship credit outright, you should check to see whether they deserve credit.</p>
								<p>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, the person in question is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way. Taking these facts into consideration, what would you do next?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Add the person's name as an author <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Ignore the note and omit the person's name <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> Seek advice from an independent source <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 9:</h4>
								<p>Good choice. Any decisions about authorship should be based on whether the person in question meets the standards for authorship that apply to your publication. Authorship rests on contribution to the project, not job title. Laboratory heads do not automatically qualify for authorship unless they meet all the criteria described by COPE.</p>
								<p>When you check, you conclude that the person who asked for authorship credit does not deserve it. However, the person in question is in a position of power over you, or could influence your career in some way. Taking these facts into consideration, what would you do next?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Add the person's name as an author <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Ignore the note and omit the person's name <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> Seek advice from an independent source <strong>[Proceed to Question 10]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 10:</h4>
								<p>This is a situation that calls for independent advice. Adding an unqualified author is irresponsible and could be considered misconduct. Ignoring the wishes of a senior colleague could adversely influence your career. You might consider talking with the colleague, but if the discussion does not go well this could make the situation worse.</p>
								<p>Most universities have staff and offices that advise on situations such as this. Get advice, if for no other reason than to have someone to back you up if questions are raised later.</p>
								<p>With this difficult situation hopefully resolved, you send your manuscript off. A reasonable time later, you receive a message saying that, following three reviews of your manuscript, it has been recommended for publication on the condition that you rewrite the abstract to place more emphasis on the importance of your findings and less on the limitations of your research.</p>
								<p>Would you make this change?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Yes <strong>[Proceed to Question 11]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> No  <strong>[Proceed to Question 12]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 11:</h4>
								<p>Before you make this change, you should consider your responsibilities as an author, particularly in relation to honesty and accuracy. How might it be dishonest or inaccurate to make the requested changes to the abstract?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> The claims of importance might not be supported by the findings <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Other researchers might not be able to reproduce your research <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> It could improperly inflate the journal's Impact Factor <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 12:</h4>
								<p>Editors do sometimes ask for changes that would not be responsible. How might it be dishonest or inaccurate to make the requested changes to the abstract?</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> The claims of importance might not be supported by the findings <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Other researchers might not be able to reproduce your research <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 3:</strong> It could improperly inflate the journal's Impact Factor <strong>[Proceed to Question 13]</strong> </li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 13:</h4>
								<p>If you rewrite the abstract to place less emphasis on the limitations of your research, your claims of importance might not be supported by the findings. Do not make changes just to get published. Only make changes that are justified and improve the article.</p>
								<p>Once you work through the changes with the editor, your article is finally published. You add the publication to your CV and move on to your next project. You feel that everything is wrapped up until the journal editor informs you that they have received information suggesting that some of the material in your recently published article is plagiarised.  </p>
								<p>As you are a responsible researcher, this should come as an unpleasant and unanticipated surprise. What could you possibly have done wrong? Before you respond, you run through a checklist to see what you did to avoid plagiarism. Did you:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Set out all direct quotes in quotation marks or as block quotations?</li>
									<li>Add citations immediately after the quoted text?</li>
									<li>Provide a specific source for each quotation?</li>
									<li>Provide a citation and reference when paraphrasing material from another source?</li>
									<li>Make sure that readers know that paraphrased material was the work of others?</li>
									<li>Check any material written by co-authors to make sure it was not plagiarised?</li>
								</ul>
								<p>Review the questions on the list above and choose the response below that best reflects your own practices; you will then be taken to a screen with advice on what to do next.</p>
								<ul>
									<li><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Answered "no" to at least one question on the list <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 1]</strong></li>
									<li><strong>Answer 2:</strong> Answered "yes" to all the questions on the list <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 2]</strong></li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 1:</h4>
								<p>If you answered "no" to any of the questions, then you might have located the source of your problem. For one reason or another, the wording of or work from another source has made its way into your publication. If this happens, you should work with your editor to resolve the problem. These are not pleasant situations. You may need to issue a correction, or, if the plagiarism is extensive, a retraction could be required. As you work through the problem, keep others informed.</p>
								<p>Fortunately, if you take your publication responsibilities seriously, you should be able to avoid the problems set out in this activity or know how to deal with them successfully.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 2:</h4>
								<p>If you answered "yes" to all of the questions, is there anything you could have done wrong? You may have noticed that we did not ask if you could have plagiarised from yourself. Self-plagiarism, also called redundant publication, is a problem. If you have published something before, you cannot publish it again as an original publication. There are legitimate reasons to publish the same findings or argument in more than one journal, but you must make sure you acknowledge the original publication to avoid being accused of self-plagiarism.</p>
								<p>Fortunately, if you take your publication responsibilities seriously, you should be able to avoid the problems set out in this activity or know how to deal with them successfully.</p>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
						</page-content-wide>
					</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>