Ghost writing has been an emerging area of great concern within the research integrity community in the biomedical sciences. Particularly problematic is the degree to which pharmaceutical and medical device industries have guided the research literature on the efficacy of their products, through ghost written articles 'authored' by academic researchers. Federal research misconduct policies say little, if anything, about this issue and because most research institutions based their research integrity policies on federal policies many institutions are quiet about ghost writing. Some medical and pharmacy schools, however, have now amended their policies to clarify the inappropriateness of ghost writing, but I am unclear as to whether they consider it as a form of plagiarism or the degree to which the practice is considered research misconduct. There have also been an increasing number of editorials in medical journals that caution against ghost writing. Most major journals also have fairly strict guidelines for authorship and make authors sign a contribution disclosure form which, technically, would clarify this matter for editors and readers. But, as with the failure of some authors to fully declare their conflicts of interests with respect to ties they may have with the industry when they write about their products, I suppose ghost writing will similarly continue to occur. It may not constitute plagiarism, but it is equally deceptive to the reader and to those who evaluate the research output of the individual.
Miguel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marie Helweg-Larsen" <helw...@dickinson.edu> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:07:22 AM Subject: RE: [tips] Why isn't this plagiarism? With respect to students and ghost writing it is pretty simple: we require the work to be the student's work. So if it is not the student's own work (whether the additional help was paid for, coerced, received in exchange for sexual services or something else) it would violate the academic expectations (unless of course such collaboration was permitted). I don't know anything about the Sherwin case (well clearly no one does since it is secret) but lots of people are authors on papers they did not actually write. Perhaps they edited the paper, collected the data, analyzed the data, did the literature, etc. In fact, in the biological sciences it is common for the lab director to be an author on every paper produced by his/her lab even if he/she did nothing specifically to create the paper or research. I don't know much about ghost writing popular books. Doesn't it usually say "famous person's name" WITH "ghost writer" on the cover? But even without a ghost writer lots and lots of people edit the words in a book before it is published. They are usually thanked in the acknowledgements but presumable have not "earned" co-authorship status. So clearly it is a judgment call when someone has contributed so much to the writing that they should be acknowledged on the cover as opposed to thanked in the acknowledgments. Marie **************************************************** Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Danish Institute for Study Abroad (DIS), +45 2065 1360 Dickinson College (on leave 2010/2011) http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/index.html **************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 0:51 To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Why isn't this plagiarism? John F. Kennedy received acclaim, respect, and a Pulitzer Prize (1957) for writing _Profiles in Courage_ (1956). His achievement may well have contributed to his successful election to the US Presidency. It now turns out, according to the obituary of Ted Sorensen just published in the New York Times, that the book was largely written by Sorensen, who was paid for his efforts. Why is this not plagiarism? Well, possibly because the subterfuge was carried out with the permission of the true author. Ghost writing is an accepted practice and commonplace. If so, then Barbara Sherwin, the McGill psychology professor who was caught claiming credit for a published review of estrogen treatments which was really ghost-written for her and paid for by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, is not guilty of scientific misconduct. We don't know whether McGill thinks so, because McGill's internal investigation of the matter remains confidential (see http://mcgilldaily.com/articles/36530 ; scroll down). If so, then a student who buys a term paper can similarly claim it's ok because the true author agreed (after payment was received, of course). Should we be warning our students that they'd better not plagiarize, because if they do, they could one day become President of the United States? Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: helw...@dickinson.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=6172 or send a blank email to leave-6172-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: roig-rear...@comcast.net. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c74e&n=T&l=tips&o=6180 or send a blank email to leave-6180-13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6184 or send a blank email to leave-6184-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
