HP5C: Ethical Issues in Research Publication - Essay Example

From Alyssa’s and Ben’s story, violation of principle of authorship is evident. The overruling rationale of counsels on authorship is that only those partners who have made a substantial scientific involvement should be recognized as the authors. Callaham (2003) suggests that the inclusion of an individual to authorship will require scientific contribution to the research or to the writing of the project paper as a whole. From the facts given, Ben is should not be permitted to be a co-author since he has not contributed at all to the research or writing of the research project paper.

His mere contribution of presentation of the research paper to the council does not merit him to be a Co-author. Callaham (2003) suggest that such actions should only be acknowledged in a note. This is an insignificant contribution that is regarded as a technical activity that offers no substantial intellectual support to the research process. Ben’s activity was insignificant to the whole research process. In this case, Ben is Alyssa’s supervisor and again the inclusion of his name as an author should not be influenced by this relative status.

According to Callaham, granting of authorship is not on the merit of being the leader of a research group or by being the leader of a department (2003). . Ben, acting as the program chair for the conference, did not issue Alyssa with a feedback or comments upon submission of the research draft papers. He was to review the paper and issue her with written feedback on her work; instead, he does not issue her with any feedback. There is a need for evaluation of Alyssa’s work. Powell (2006) asserts that there is an increasing need for evaluation of work in the area of Library and Information science.

Evaluation tries to assess program effectiveness. Evaluators should decide on the general approach to employ and methods of data collection. Effectiveness of health institutions is dependent on the public trust. This trust attributes truthfulness, transparency, accountability, reciprocity and reliability. Ben, the chair of the program, fails to display truthfulness and accountability. He well knows the ethics of public health publications and authorship, and he goes on ahead to suggest to Alyssa to add him as a Co-author.

This proves that Ben is unreliable and not transparent and lacks integrity (Committee on Publication ethics). The committee on publication ethics provides codes of conducts and practice guidelines for journal editors. Editors should follow those guidelines. The committee reviews and considers complains about the editors who do not follow such codes. The codes of conduct set out measures of an excellent editorial conduct (Committee on Publication Ethics). Editors should take the role as biomedical guardians to ensure that all misconduct cases are thoroughly investigated.

Alyssa has a chance to take her case before the publication ethics committee. The journals should have an authoritative policy on how cases of misconduct should be