Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-10-2012 16:18
    25sgrogelb@uncc.edu" type="cite">
    (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)

    Dear Colleagues

    Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the EditorEthics initiative (http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200 journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the website) have affirmed their commitment to the following: 

    I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  

    II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer review process (if applicable). This could include but is not limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to market online access or subscription information; and allowing publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-science-based bearing on the peer review process.

    III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud, research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest, b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.

    IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my associate editors and board members, and to conveying these principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions, with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.


    This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website: http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  

    Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you would like to be added to the affirmation list.

    Best regards,
    Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology 
    Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management






    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    sgrogelb@uncc.edu/" target="_blank" style="color: #0000FF; text-decoration: underline">sgrogelb@uncc.edu  | http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • 2.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-11-2012 11:42

    It is indeed a very good start. That said, there is some confusion between universal ethics and strategic positions a journal may take to occupy a certain niche to be influential in its domain. For example, this is part of the ethics document that was attached:

     

    ...for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.

     

    I know of surveys that collect some 100 variables (e.g:NPHS, there are others I know of) and a study using the data set may be interested in a model that is theoretically driven that has say only 10 variables. Describing the full set of variables in the study or publications from the data set that are not relevant to the study can be onerous and detracting if it is actually in the text of the manuscript.

     

     

    Considering the publication of any results ( null or significant) is a judgment call in so far as their theoretical and methodological relevance is concerned. Use of an ethical blanket in such cases is not necessary. I don't see it as an ethical issue, but a scholarly one.

     

    Not supporting replication efforts need not be an ethical lapse, even when the replication effort is substantive and important. It is a judgment call and it is part of a strategic positioning of a journal within a stable of journals. If AoM decides to have a journal dedicated to replications, there is no ethical violation if the editor of AMJ refers the authors of replication studies to that journal and not consider them for publication in AMJ.

     

    To be theoretical or not in one's research is a scholarly judgment; not an ethical one. It has indeed been a matter of scholarly debate. The role of theory varies according to the maturity of a discipline and a body of knowledge.

     

    Opportunistic use of data and post hoc hypothesizing can have either positive or negative outcomes. Good reviewers and editors can render scholarly judgments on that and they have been doing that over a long period. I do not view them as an across the board ethical violation. It has more to do with intellectual fashion and style than with scholarly ethics.

     

    My two pennies worth!

     

    Baba

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Rogelberg, Steven
    Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:18 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update

     

    (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)

     

    Dear Colleagues

     

    Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the EditorEthics initiative (http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200 journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the website) have affirmed their commitment to the following: 

     

    I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  

     

    II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer review process (if applicable). This could include but is not limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to market online access or subscription information; and allowing publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-science-based bearing on the peer review process.

     

    III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud, research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest, b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.

     

    IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my associate editors and board members, and to conveying these principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions, with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.

     

    This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website: http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  

     

    Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you would like to be added to the affirmation list.

     

    Best regards,

    Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology 

    Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    sgrogelb@uncc.edu/" target="_blank">sgrogelb@uncc.edu  | http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



  • 3.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-11-2012 17:16

    I also believe that there is much to like about the EditorEthics initiative.  And I agree with many of the points made by Vishwanath Baba.  However, I'd like to further highlight one issue in particular that needs a bit more thought.  The issue is:

    "and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review."  

    This might be fine for the large number of small surveys, but then it might not matter.  However, for some of us who conduct large epidemiological surveys that cross disciplinary boundaries, this is an onerous and largely unproductive task.  To provide some real life experience, I was once asked by the associate editor of a leading journal many years ago to create a grid with variables across the top and papers from the study down the side and put a check mark showing which variables were used in which studies.  This was a household survey with well over 1,000 variables/constructs across three waves of data collection and dozens of manuscripts at the time.  The papers were nonoverlapping and many of the variables had not been explored yet.  The papers were published in a variety of disciplines because most large epidemiological studies have many goals.  I ultimately pulled the paper from the journal because the editor, who had never conducted such large surveys, had no idea regarding the amount of work it would take. And, even though it wasn't going to take up journal space, I found the request a waste of precious time and resources.  The paper was published elsewhere.  I have since conducted two large national surveys that have assessed hundreds of variables/constructs each.  One has produced a number of papers on different issues, and the other has yet to be analyzed.  Both studies were designed to address a number of substantive issues.  So, I find the statement above problematic without some additional consideration.  

    If one of the many large national studies that are publically available, not only can the number of variables run into the hundreds or thousands, so too can the number of papers published from these ongoing data collections.  But it appears the term "one-off" would not include such data sets, though logically the underlying reason for this statement would still apply.
     
    If one knows an area well enough to be reviewing some manuscript, one can ask the prospective authors if particular additional variables were assessed or not.  I have done this from time to time because if variables a, b, and c were assessed, it is quite likely that related variables d, e, and f were also assessed and were not mentioned.  But asking about specific variables is quite different from requiring an author to document a large study in detail when submitting a manuscript.  It also has the potential to give editors and reviewers undue influence on the shape of a manuscript, which itself could be viewed as an unintended ethical issue.    
     
    ****************************************************************
    Michael R. Frone, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Research Institute on Addictions
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    1021 Main Street
    Buffalo, New York 14203

    Office:    716-887-2519
    Fax:        716-887-2477
    E-mail:     frone@ria.buffalo.edu
    Internet:     http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/profiles/frone.html
    ***************************************************************

    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote on 09/11/2012 11:41:46 AM:

    > It is indeed a very good start. That said, there is some confusion
    > between universal ethics and strategic positions a journal may take
    > to occupy a certain niche to be influential in its domain. For
    > example, this is part of the ethics document that was attached:
    >  
    > ...for one-off data collections, describing the full set of
    > variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under
    > review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-
    > relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important
    > replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and
    > atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > I know of surveys that collect some 100 variables (e.g:NPHS, there
    > are others I know of) and a study using the data set may be
    > interested in a model that is theoretically driven that has say only
    > 10 variables. Describing the full set of variables in the study or
    > publications from the data set that are not relevant to the study
    > can be onerous and detracting if it is actually in the text of the
    > manuscript.
    >  
    >  
    > Considering the publication of any results ( null or significant) is
    > a judgment call in so far as their theoretical and methodological
    > relevance is concerned. Use of an ethical blanket in such cases is
    > not necessary. I don't see it as an ethical issue, but a scholarly one.
    >  
    > Not supporting replication efforts need not be an ethical lapse,
    > even when the replication effort is substantive and important. It is
    > a judgment call and it is part of a strategic positioning of a
    > journal within a stable of journals. If AoM decides to have a
    > journal dedicated to replications, there is no ethical violation if
    > the editor of AMJ refers the authors of replication studies to that
    > journal and not consider them for publication in AMJ.
    >  
    > To be theoretical or not in one's research is a scholarly judgment;
    > not an ethical one. It has indeed been a matter of scholarly debate.
    > The role of theory varies according to the maturity of a discipline
    > and a body of knowledge.
    >  
    > Opportunistic use of data and post hoc hypothesizing can have either
    > positive or negative outcomes. Good reviewers and editors can render
    > scholarly judgments on that and they have been doing that over a
    > long period. I do not view them as an across the board ethical
    > violation. It has more to do with intellectual fashion and style
    > than with scholarly ethics.
    >  
    > My two pennies worth!
    >  
    > Baba
    >  
    >  
    > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    > On Behalf Of Rogelberg, Steven
    > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:18 PM
    > To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update
    >  
    > (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)
    >  
    > Dear Colleagues
    >  
    > Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the
    > EditorEthics initiative (    http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200
    > journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the
    > website) have affirmed their commitment to the following:
    >  
    > I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both
    > public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review
    > process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are
    > irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain
    > from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my
    > colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific
    > issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that
    > any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the
    > suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the
    > additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  
    >  
    > II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and
    > publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer
    > review process (if applicable). This could include but is not
    > limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing
    > purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to
    > market online access or subscription information; and allowing
    > publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-
    > science-based bearing on the peer review process.
    >  
    > III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud,
    > research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate
    > findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and
    > appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data
    > transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest,
    > b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data
    > collections, describing the full set of variables and other
    > publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to
    > consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null
    > results; d) to support substantive and important replication
    > efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-
    > hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my
    > associate editors and board members, and to conveying these
    > principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels
    > at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices
    > have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions,
    > with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose
    > actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.
    >  
    > This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been
    > incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to
    > the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in
    > the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors
    > accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal
    > experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate
    > to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu
    > ) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website:
    >     http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  
    >  
    > Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you
    > would like to be added to the affirmation list.
    >  
    > Best regards,
    > Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    > Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    > 9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    > Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    > sgrogelb@uncc.edu  |     http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • 4.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-11-2012 22:05
    Thanks Michael and Baba.  This is very useful input as we see this as version 1.0 of the code. If anyone has additional feedback, please feel free to send to me or Deb. This will all be helpful as we move to version 2.0 down the road.   Also, I thought you might be interested in seeing the initial email that was sent to journal editors.  It spoke more of this process.
    Steven


    Dear Journal Editors,

    The recent pointed incidents and publicity on coercive citations and research integrity in the social sciences is a real and important commentary on the integrity of our science.  In an informal way, a few of us (Deborah Rupp, Steven Rogelberg, Steve Kozlowski, Fred Morgeson and Jason Colquitt) got together to talk more about this.  We thought as a journal editor community we need to make a strong and public stance regarding the ethicality of our science and more specifically on our publication process. To that end, after much iteration and input, we created a voluntary code of journal editor ethics.  There are no surprises in the code per se.  The typical reaction we get when showing it to an editor is, "I already do all this". That is totally fine.  We would like to distribute this widely to editors and line up support.  Like you, I am sure, we very much want to do anything possible to protect our science.  This is obviously a non-binding voluntary process, but creates implicit and explicit social norms.  To us, it is a small and easy approach, but one that can be quite impactful. The code can be found at the following website Deb and I created:


    After reading the document, if you would like to be placed on the "affirmative" list, let me know.  I also want to point out that this document will evolve over time.  Namely, it can be revisited  yearly or every two years or so to be sure it is capturing the salient issues in our science (as well as any editor changes). A new affirmation process could then start. So, this is really code 1.0. It is just a start on a path.   It will continue to be improved over time with the input of the community.   Those affirming will be listed on a website that is being created. We will then distribute the link to the scholarly community to help get the word out.  We certainly understand that this is not a perfect document.  There may even be a a couple of small things you disagree with. To temper this and as to not go against your formal journal documents, we wrote many of the statements with the caveat: "I will, whenever possible and appropriate given the scope of my journal".  But, again, with that  all said we hope you agree with the spirit and gist of what we are trying to do and will share your affirmation.  Thanks all.
    • if you are no longer editing a journal, please forward to the editor that replaced you
    • Please feel free to forward this to any and all editors.

    From: Michael Frone <frone@RIA.BUFFALO.EDU>
    Reply-To: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:16 PM
    To: "OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU" <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update


    I also believe that there is much to like about the EditorEthics initiative.  And I agree with many of the points made by Vishwanath Baba.  However, I'd like to further highlight one issue in particular that needs a bit more thought.  The issue is:

    "and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review."  

    This might be fine for the large number of small surveys, but then it might not matter.  However, for some of us who conduct large epidemiological surveys that cross disciplinary boundaries, this is an onerous and largely unproductive task.  To provide some real life experience, I was once asked by the associate editor of a leading journal many years ago to create a grid with variables across the top and papers from the study down the side and put a check mark showing which variables were used in which studies.  This was a household survey with well over 1,000 variables/constructs across three waves of data collection and dozens of manuscripts at the time.  The papers were nonoverlapping and many of the variables had not been explored yet.  The papers were published in a variety of disciplines because most large epidemiological studies have many goals.  I ultimately pulled the paper from the journal because the editor, who had never conducted such large surveys, had no idea regarding the amount of work it would take. And, even though it wasn't going to take up journal space, I found the request a waste of precious time and resources.  The paper was published elsewhere.  I have since conducted two large national surveys that have assessed hundreds of variables/constructs each.  One has produced a number of papers on different issues, and the other has yet to be analyzed.  Both studies were designed to address a number of substantive issues.  So, I find the statement above problematic without some additional consideration.  

    If one of the many large national studies that are publically available, not only can the number of variables run into the hundreds or thousands, so too can the number of papers published from these ongoing data collections.  But it appears the term "one-off" would not include such data sets, though logically the underlying reason for this statement would still apply.
     
    If one knows an area well enough to be reviewing some manuscript, one can ask the prospective authors if particular additional variables were assessed or not.  I have done this from time to time because if variables a, b, and c were assessed, it is quite likely that related variables d, e, and f were also assessed and were not mentioned.  But asking about specific variables is quite different from requiring an author to document a large study in detail when submitting a manuscript.  It also has the potential to give editors and reviewers undue influence on the shape of a manuscript, which itself could be viewed as an unintended ethical issue.    
     
    ****************************************************************
    Michael R. Frone, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Research Institute on Addictions
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    1021 Main Street
    Buffalo, New York 14203

    Office:    716-887-2519
    Fax:        716-887-2477
    E-mail:     frone@ria.buffalo.edu
    Internet:     http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/profiles/frone.html
    ***************************************************************

    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote on 09/11/2012 11:41:46 AM:

    > It is indeed a very good start. That said, there is some confusion
    > between universal ethics and strategic positions a journal may take
    > to occupy a certain niche to be influential in its domain. For
    > example, this is part of the ethics document that was attached:
    >  
    > ...for one-off data collections, describing the full set of
    > variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under
    > review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-
    > relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important
    > replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and
    > atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > I know of surveys that collect some 100 variables (e.g:NPHS, there
    > are others I know of) and a study using the data set may be
    > interested in a model that is theoretically driven that has say only
    > 10 variables. Describing the full set of variables in the study or
    > publications from the data set that are not relevant to the study
    > can be onerous and detracting if it is actually in the text of the
    > manuscript.
    >  
    >  
    > Considering the publication of any results ( null or significant) is
    > a judgment call in so far as their theoretical and methodological
    > relevance is concerned. Use of an ethical blanket in such cases is
    > not necessary. I don't see it as an ethical issue, but a scholarly one.
    >  
    > Not supporting replication efforts need not be an ethical lapse,
    > even when the replication effort is substantive and important. It is
    > a judgment call and it is part of a strategic positioning of a
    > journal within a stable of journals. If AoM decides to have a
    > journal dedicated to replications, there is no ethical violation if
    > the editor of AMJ refers the authors of replication studies to that
    > journal and not consider them for publication in AMJ.
    >  
    > To be theoretical or not in one's research is a scholarly judgment;
    > not an ethical one. It has indeed been a matter of scholarly debate.
    > The role of theory varies according to the maturity of a discipline
    > and a body of knowledge.
    >  
    > Opportunistic use of data and post hoc hypothesizing can have either
    > positive or negative outcomes. Good reviewers and editors can render
    > scholarly judgments on that and they have been doing that over a
    > long period. I do not view them as an across the board ethical
    > violation. It has more to do with intellectual fashion and style
    > than with scholarly ethics.
    >  
    > My two pennies worth!
    >  
    > Baba
    >  
    >  
    > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    > On Behalf Of Rogelberg, Steven
    > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:18 PM
    > To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update
    >  
    > (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)
    >  
    > Dear Colleagues
    >  
    > Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the
    > EditorEthics initiative (    http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200
    > journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the
    > website) have affirmed their commitment to the following:
    >  
    > I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both
    > public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review
    > process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are
    > irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain
    > from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my
    > colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific
    > issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that
    > any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the
    > suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the
    > additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  
    >  
    > II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and
    > publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer
    > review process (if applicable). This could include but is not
    > limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing
    > purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to
    > market online access or subscription information; and allowing
    > publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-
    > science-based bearing on the peer review process.
    >  
    > III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud,
    > research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate
    > findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and
    > appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data
    > transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest,
    > b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data
    > collections, describing the full set of variables and other
    > publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to
    > consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null
    > results; d) to support substantive and important replication
    > efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-
    > hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my
    > associate editors and board members, and to conveying these
    > principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels
    > at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices
    > have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions,
    > with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose
    > actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.
    >  
    > This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been
    > incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to
    > the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in
    > the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors
    > accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal
    > experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate
    > to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu
    > ) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website:
    >     http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  
    >  
    > Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you
    > would like to be added to the affirmation list.
    >  
    > Best regards,
    > Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    > Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    > 9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    > Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    > sgrogelb@uncc.edu  |     http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • 5.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-12-2012 08:28

    I think the EditorEthics initiative is critically important. The social sciences are embarassingly behind on editorial and research ethics policy, compared to what the International Council of Medical Journal Editors has accomplished. This includes journals that publish epidemiological work. I applaud Steve and Deborah and the other founding editors.

     

    Question for Michael: When you published the series of papers from the epidemiological data set, did you note in each one that it was a subset of a larger data collection effort? Did you ensure that editors and readers were able to distinguish if some of the same data appeared in more than one article? You note that the papers were non-overlapping, but that does not mean that all of the data across the set of articles were fully independent. They were all collected on the same subjects. Failure to alert the scientific community to lack of independence of data which "appear" as independent is a problem. Anyone who has conducted a meta-analysis can tell you how much of a problem it can be. And, from a scientific point of view, it is critical that we have an accurate estimate of how much (independent) information we actually have on an issue. It may not be possible to publish all the data from a large survey in a single article, the data base has to be available for some independent body.  If it is a public or quasi-public data set, a refeerence to where the entire set is available should be available.

     

    Baba: Post hoc hypothesizing that is marketed by the researchers as a priori hypothesizing is one of the biggest ethical and scientific problems in our field. A recent paper by Bedeian  et al reports that 90% of researchers know of cases of HARKing. (Hypothesizing after results are known).

     

    Publishing only statistically significant results leads to overestimation of real effect sizes and creates a a problem that is both scientific and ethics-related.  Publishing "new results" and failing to see if they replicate is similarly a scientific and ethical problem. (See John Ioannidis' brilliant and scathing analyses of failures to replicate). When a field, because of editorial or scholarly policies, does not live according to the scientific principles it is based on, but promotes itself as if it does, that is certainly an ethics problem. The validity of the inferences we make from our results is highly dependent on working according to statistical principles that are well known and widely ignored. When we KNOW that we are capitalizing on chance, but act as if we are not, that is an ethical violation as far as I am concerned.

     

    Let the conversation continue

     

    Hannah R. Rothstein, Ph.D.
    Department of Management
    Zicklin School of Business
    Baruch College--CUNY
    1 Bernard Baruch Way
    New York, NY 10010
    USA

    Visit Research Synthesis Methods
    The official journal of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology
    at www.researchsynthesismethods.com
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Michael Frone [frone@RIA.BUFFALO.EDU]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:16 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update


    I also believe that there is much to like about the EditorEthics initiative.  And I agree with many of the points made by Vishwanath Baba.  However, I'd like to further highlight one issue in particular that needs a bit more thought.  The issue is:

    "and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review."  

    This might be fine for the large number of small surveys, but then it might not matter.  However, for some of us who conduct large epidemiological surveys that cross disciplinary boundaries, this is an onerous and largely unproductive task.  To provide some real life experience, I was once asked by the associate editor of a leading journal many years ago to create a grid with variables across the top and papers from the study down the side and put a check mark showing which variables were used in which studies.  This was a household survey with well over 1,000 variables/constructs across three waves of data collection and dozens of manuscripts at the time.  The papers were nonoverlapping and many of the variables had not been explored yet.  The papers were published in a variety of disciplines because most large epidemiological studies have many goals.  I ultimately pulled the paper from the journal because the editor, who had never conducted such large surveys, had no idea regarding the amount of work it would take. And, even though it wasn't going to take up journal space, I found the request a waste of precious time and resources.  The paper was published elsewhere.  I have since conducted two large national surveys that have assessed hundreds of variables/constructs each.  One has produced a number of papers on different issues, and the other has yet to be analyzed.  Both studies were designed to address a number of substantive issues.  So, I find the statement above problematic without some additional consideration.  

    If one of the many large national studies that are publically available, not only can the number of variables run into the hundreds or thousands, so too can the number of papers published from these ongoing data collections.  But it appears the term "one-off" would not include such data sets, though logically the underlying reason for this statement would still apply.
     
    If one knows an area well enough to be reviewing some manuscript, one can ask the prospective authors if particular additional variables were assessed or not.  I have done this from time to time because if variables a, b, and c were assessed, it is quite likely that related variables d, e, and f were also assessed and were not mentioned.  But asking about specific variables is quite different from requiring an author to document a large study in detail when submitting a manuscript.  It also has the potential to give editors and reviewers undue influence on the shape of a manuscript, which itself could be viewed as an unintended ethical issue.    
     
    ****************************************************************
    Michael R. Frone, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Research Institute on Addictions
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    1021 Main Street
    Buffalo, New York 14203

    Office:    716-887-2519
    Fax:        716-887-2477
    E-mail:     frone@ria.buffalo.edu
    Internet:     http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/profiles/frone.html
    ***************************************************************

    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote on 09/11/2012 11:41:46 AM:

    > It is indeed a very good start. That said, there is some confusion
    > between universal ethics and strategic positions a journal may take
    > to occupy a certain niche to be influential in its domain. For
    > example, this is part of the ethics document that was attached:
    >  
    > ...for one-off data collections, describing the full set of
    > variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under
    > review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-
    > relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important
    > replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and
    > atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > I know of surveys that collect some 100 variables (e.g:NPHS, there
    > are others I know of) and a study using the data set may be
    > interested in a model that is theoretically driven that has say only
    > 10 variables. Describing the full set of variables in the study or
    > publications from the data set that are not relevant to the study
    > can be onerous and detracting if it is actually in the text of the
    > manuscript.
    >  
    >  
    > Considering the publication of any results ( null or significant) is
    > a judgment call in so far as their theoretical and methodological
    > relevance is concerned. Use of an ethical blanket in such cases is
    > not necessary. I don't see it as an ethical issue, but a scholarly one.
    >  
    > Not supporting replication efforts need not be an ethical lapse,
    > even when the replication effort is substantive and important. It is
    > a judgment call and it is part of a strategic positioning of a
    > journal within a stable of journals. If AoM decides to have a
    > journal dedicated to replications, there is no ethical violation if
    > the editor of AMJ refers the authors of replication studies to that
    > journal and not consider them for publication in AMJ.
    >  
    > To be theoretical or not in one's research is a scholarly judgment;
    > not an ethical one. It has indeed been a matter of scholarly debate.
    > The role of theory varies according to the maturity of a discipline
    > and a body of knowledge.
    >  
    > Opportunistic use of data and post hoc hypothesizing can have either
    > positive or negative outcomes. Good reviewers and editors can render
    > scholarly judgments on that and they have been doing that over a
    > long period. I do not view them as an across the board ethical
    > violation. It has more to do with intellectual fashion and style
    > than with scholarly ethics.
    >  
    > My two pennies worth!
    >  
    > Baba
    >  
    >  
    > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    > On Behalf Of Rogelberg, Steven
    > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:18 PM
    > To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update
    >  
    > (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)
    >  
    > Dear Colleagues
    >  
    > Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the
    > EditorEthics initiative (    http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200
    > journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the
    > website) have affirmed their commitment to the following:
    >  
    > I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both
    > public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review
    > process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are
    > irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain
    > from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my
    > colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific
    > issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that
    > any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the
    > suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the
    > additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  
    >  
    > II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and
    > publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer
    > review process (if applicable). This could include but is not
    > limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing
    > purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to
    > market online access or subscription information; and allowing
    > publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-
    > science-based bearing on the peer review process.
    >  
    > III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud,
    > research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate
    > findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and
    > appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data
    > transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest,
    > b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data
    > collections, describing the full set of variables and other
    > publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to
    > consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null
    > results; d) to support substantive and important replication
    > efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-
    > hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my
    > associate editors and board members, and to conveying these
    > principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels
    > at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices
    > have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions,
    > with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose
    > actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.
    >  
    > This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been
    > incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to
    > the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in
    > the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors
    > accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal
    > experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate
    > to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu
    > ) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website:
    >     http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  
    >  
    > Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you
    > would like to be added to the affirmation list.
    >  
    > Best regards,
    > Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    > Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    > 9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    > Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    > sgrogelb@uncc.edu  |     http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • 6.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-12-2012 09:41

    Hi all,

     

    I'd like to direct this discussion to COPE (the Committee for Publication Ethics) for any issues not covered by EditorEthics. Many journal publishers are members of this group, which provides support and guidance on ethical issues surrounding publication. Given the high number of journal publishers who are members, it may be that journals are already included but without the Editors being fully aware. While it's a good source, there are things the new EditorEthics group addresses that COPE doesn't, and probably vice versa.

     

    Well worth a look http://publicationethics.org/

     

    Best,

     

    Kim Eggleton
    Senior Commissioning Editor | Emerald Group Publishing Limited
    Tel: +44 (0) 1274 785076 | Fax: +44 (0) 1274 785244
    keggleton@emeraldinsight.com | www.emeraldinsight.com

     

       

     

    P Please consider the environment before printing this email

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hannah Rothstein
    Sent: 12 September 2012 13:28
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update

     

    I think the EditorEthics initiative is critically important. The social sciences are embarassingly behind on editorial and research ethics policy, compared to what the International Council of Medical Journal Editors has accomplished. This includes journals that publish epidemiological work. I applaud Steve and Deborah and the other founding editors.

     

    Question for Michael: When you published the series of papers from the epidemiological data set, did you note in each one that it was a subset of a larger data collection effort? Did you ensure that editors and readers were able to distinguish if some of the same data appeared in more than one article? You note that the papers were non-overlapping, but that does not mean that all of the data across the set of articles were fully independent. They were all collected on the same subjects. Failure to alert the scientific community to lack of independence of data which "appear" as independent is a problem. Anyone who has conducted a meta-analysis can tell you how much of a problem it can be. And, from a scientific point of view, it is critical that we have an accurate estimate of how much (independent) information we actually have on an issue. It may not be possible to publish all the data from a large survey in a single article, the data base has to be available for some independent body.  If it is a public or quasi-public data set, a refeerence to where the entire set is available should be available.

     

    Baba: Post hoc hypothesizing that is marketed by the researchers as a priori hypothesizing is one of the biggest ethical and scientific problems in our field. A recent paper by Bedeian  et al reports that 90% of researchers know of cases of HARKing. (Hypothesizing after results are known).

     

    Publishing only statistically significant results leads to overestimation of real effect sizes and creates a a problem that is both scientific and ethics-related.  Publishing "new results" and failing to see if they replicate is similarly a scientific and ethical problem. (See John Ioannidis' brilliant and scathing analyses of failures to replicate). When a field, because of editorial or scholarly policies, does not live according to the scientific principles it is based on, but promotes itself as if it does, that is certainly an ethics problem. The validity of the inferences we make from our results is highly dependent on working according to statistical principles that are well known and widely ignored. When we KNOW that we are capitalizing on chance, but act as if we are not, that is an ethical violation as far as I am concerned.

     

    Let the conversation continue

     

    Hannah R. Rothstein, Ph.D.
    Department of Management
    Zicklin School of Business
    Baruch College--CUNY
    1 Bernard Baruch Way
    New York, NY 10010
    USA

    Visit Research Synthesis Methods
    The official journal of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology
    at www.researchsynthesismethods.com

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Michael Frone [frone@RIA.BUFFALO.EDU]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:16 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update


    I also believe that there is much to like about the EditorEthics initiative.  And I agree with many of the points made by Vishwanath Baba.  However, I'd like to further highlight one issue in particular that needs a bit more thought.  The issue is:

    "and for one-off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review."  

    This might be fine for the large number of small surveys, but then it might not matter.  However, for some of us who conduct large epidemiological surveys that cross disciplinary boundaries, this is an onerous and largely unproductive task.  To provide some real life experience, I was once asked by the associate editor of a leading journal many years ago to create a grid with variables across the top and papers from the study down the side and put a check mark showing which variables were used in which studies.  This was a household survey with well over 1,000 variables/constructs across three waves of data collection and dozens of manuscripts at the time.  The papers were nonoverlapping and many of the variables had not been explored yet.  The papers were published in a variety of disciplines because most large epidemiological studies have many goals.  I ultimately pulled the paper from the journal because the editor, who had never conducted such large surveys, had no idea regarding the amount of work it would take. And, even though it wasn't going to take up journal space, I found the request a waste of precious time and resources.  The paper was published elsewhere.  I have since conducted two large national surveys that have assessed hundreds of variables/constructs each.  One has produced a number of papers on different issues, and the other has yet to be analyzed.  Both studies were designed to address a number of substantive issues.  So, I find the statement above problematic without some additional consideration.  

    If one of the many large national studies that are publically available, not only can the number of variables run into the hundreds or thousands, so too can the number of papers published from these ongoing data collections.  But it appears the term "one-off" would not include such data sets, though logically the underlying reason for this statement would still apply.
     
    If one knows an area well enough to be reviewing some manuscript, one can ask the prospective authors if particular additional variables were assessed or not.  I have done this from time to time because if variables a, b, and c were assessed, it is quite likely that related variables d, e, and f were also assessed and were not mentioned.  But asking about specific variables is quite different from requiring an author to document a large study in detail when submitting a manuscript.  It also has the potential to give editors and reviewers undue influence on the shape of a manuscript, which itself could be viewed as an unintended ethical issue.    
     
    ****************************************************************
    Michael R. Frone, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Research Institute on Addictions
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    1021 Main Street
    Buffalo, New York 14203

    Office:    716-887-2519
    Fax:        716-887-2477
    E-mail:     frone@ria.buffalo.edu
    Internet:     http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/profiles/frone.html
    ***************************************************************

    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote on 09/11/2012 11:41:46 AM:

    > It is indeed a very good start. That said, there is some confusion
    > between universal ethics and strategic positions a journal may take
    > to occupy a certain niche to be influential in its domain. For
    > example, this is part of the ethics document that was attached:
    >  
    > ...for one-off data collections, describing the full set of
    > variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under
    > review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-
    > relevant null results; d) to support substantive and important
    > replication efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and
    > atheoretical  post-hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > I know of surveys that collect some 100 variables (e.g:NPHS, there
    > are others I know of) and a study using the data set may be
    > interested in a model that is theoretically driven that has say only
    > 10 variables. Describing the full set of variables in the study or
    > publications from the data set that are not relevant to the study
    > can be onerous and detracting if it is actually in the text of the
    > manuscript.
    >  
    >  
    > Considering the publication of any results ( null or significant) is
    > a judgment call in so far as their theoretical and methodological
    > relevance is concerned. Use of an ethical blanket in such cases is
    > not necessary. I don't see it as an ethical issue, but a scholarly one.
    >  
    > Not supporting replication efforts need not be an ethical lapse,
    > even when the replication effort is substantive and important. It is
    > a judgment call and it is part of a strategic positioning of a
    > journal within a stable of journals. If AoM decides to have a
    > journal dedicated to replications, there is no ethical violation if
    > the editor of AMJ refers the authors of replication studies to that
    > journal and not consider them for publication in AMJ.
    >  
    > To be theoretical or not in one's research is a scholarly judgment;
    > not an ethical one. It has indeed been a matter of scholarly debate.
    > The role of theory varies according to the maturity of a discipline
    > and a body of knowledge.
    >  
    > Opportunistic use of data and post hoc hypothesizing can have either
    > positive or negative outcomes. Good reviewers and editors can render
    > scholarly judgments on that and they have been doing that over a
    > long period. I do not view them as an across the board ethical
    > violation. It has more to do with intellectual fashion and style
    > than with scholarly ethics.
    >  
    > My two pennies worth!
    >  
    > Baba
    >  
    >  
    > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    > On Behalf Of Rogelberg, Steven
    > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:18 PM
    > To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: [OB-LIST] Editor Ethics Update
    >  
    > (Sorry for cross -postings, we wanted to get the update out to all)
    >  
    > Dear Colleagues
    >  
    > Just wanted to provide the community with an update regarding the
    > EditorEthics initiative (    http://editorethics.uncc.edu/).  Nearly 200
    > journal editors (please note the list of supporting journals on the
    > website) have affirmed their commitment to the following:
    >  
    > I.   Refraining from coercive citation practices.  Namely, in both
    > public submission guidelines, and well as within the peer review
    > process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are
    > irrelevant to a paper's main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain
    > from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my
    > colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific
    > issues raised within the context of the review.  I acknowledge that
    > any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the
    > suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the
    > additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical.  
    >  
    > II.   Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and
    > publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer
    > review process (if applicable). This could include but is not
    > limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing
    > purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to
    > market online access or subscription information; and allowing
    > publishers' financial motives to drive strategy that has a non-
    > science-based bearing on the peer review process.
    >  
    > III.   In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud,
    > research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate
    > findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever possible and
    > appropriate given the scope of my journal, to encourage: a) data
    > transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest,
    > b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one-off data
    > collections, describing the full set of variables and other
    > publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to
    > consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null
    > results; d) to support substantive and important replication
    > efforts; e) and to discourage opportunistic and atheoretical  post-
    > hoc hypothesizing.
    >  
    > IV.   Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my
    > associate editors and board members, and to conveying these
    > principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors' panels
    > at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices
    > have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions,
    > with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose
    > actions (or whose publisher's/sponsor's actions) may be in question.
    >  
    > This is a great start.  The response from the Editors has been
    > incredibly supportive. It is gratifying to see so many dedicated to
    > the advancement of our science, with integrity.   The next step in
    > the process is for the scholarly community to hold us editors
    > accountable. If you have a questionable/concerning journal
    > experience that violates the above standards, please don't hesitate
    > to reach out to Deb Rupp (ruppd@purdue.edu) or myself (sgrogelb@uncc.edu
    > ) for suggestions and/or seek feedback in the comment forum on the website:
    >     http://editorethics.uncc.edu/Comments.aspx.  
    >  
    > Also, if you are a new journal editor, please let us know if you
    > would like to be added to the affirmation list.
    >  
    > Best regards,
    > Steven Rogelberg, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > Deborah Rupp, Journal of Management
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    >  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD | Professor and Director, Organizational Science
    > Editor, Journal of Business and Psychology
    > UNC Charlotte | Colvard 4025 | Friday 249
    > 9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
    > Phone: 704-687-1351  | Fax: 704-687-1317
    > sgrogelb@uncc.edu  |     http://www.orgscience.uncc.edu/sgrogelb/  
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA United Kingdom. Registered in England No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 665 3593 06


  • 7.  Editor Ethics Update

    Posted 09-12-2012 15:52

    The email below from Hannah Rothstein was also sent to RMNET, where I first saw it and responded.  For those who do not belong to RMNET, below are my comments.  If not interested, delete now.  And apologies to those who get this twice.


    > Question for Michael: When you published the series of papers from
    > the epidemiological data set, did you note in each one that it was a
    > subset of a larger data collection effort? Did you ensure that
    > editors and readers were able to distinguish if some of the same
    > data appeared in more than one article? You note that the papers
    > were non-overlapping, but that does not mean that all of the data
    > across the set of articles were fully independent. They were all
    > collected on the same subjects. Failure to alert the scientific
    > community to lack of independence of data which "appear" as
    > independent is a problem. Anyone who has conducted a meta-analysis
    > can tell you how much of a problem it can be. And, from a scientific
    > point of view, it is critical that we have an accurate estimate of
    > how much (independent) information we actually have on an issue. It
    > may not be possible to publish all the data from a large survey in a
    > single article, the data base has to be available for some
    > independent body.  If it is a public or quasi-public data set, a
    > refeerence to where the entire set is available should be available.

    I agree that the methods section from multiple papers from a large study should make it obvious where they came from.  In the earlier household survey and all other studies I use the same description of a given study in each paper resulting from it.  The household survey was conducted in Western NY.  I haven''t seen any other studies with this geographic description.  A careful reading should make it obvious that the papers were subsets from the same overall study.  

    Since that household survey, I give each of my studies a specific name and refer to it in each paper from that study.  For example, all respondents participated in the "Youth Employment and School Study," or the "National Survey of Workplace Health and Safety," or the "National Survey of Work Stress and Health."  If I use publicly available data sets, I also refer to the study name, such as the "National Comorbidity Survey" or the ""National Survey on Drug Use and Health."  So it should be obvious.  

    Of course, if there is confusion, I would assume a meta-analyst would send an email asking for clarification.  As for public access data sets, a quick Google search of the study name will show where the data is available. This is how I find them.
       
     
    > Baba: Post hoc hypothesizing that is marketed by the researchers as
    > a priori hypothesizing is one of the biggest ethical and scientific
    > problems in our field. A recent paper by Bedeian  et al reports that
    > 90% of researchers know of cases of HARKing. (Hypothesizing after
    > results are known).


    And to what do you attribute this problem?  it is largely caused by the review and reward systems in place. Or stated differently, it is a problem we have brought upon ourselves. Especially in OB/HRM and some areas of psychology, editors and reviewers encourage premature deduction over induction.  

    In addition to the paper that Frank Schmidt provided, the following article is useful:

    Locke, E.A. (2007).  The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867-890.

    Abstract:

    This article argues that theory building in the social sciences, management and psychology
    included, should be inductive. It begins by critiquing contemporary philosophy of science, for
    example, Popper's falsifiability theory, his stress on deduction, and the hypothetico–deductive
    method. Next, the author presents some history on the concept of induction in philosophy and of
    inductive theory building in the hard sciences (e.g., Aristotle, Bacon, Newton). This is followed
    by three examples of successful theory building by induction in psychology and management
    (Beck's theory, Bandura's social–cognitive theory, goal setting theory). The article concludes
    with some suggested guidelines for successful theory building through induction and some new
    policies that journal editors might encourage.

    Locke starts out by stating:

    "Everyone who publishes in professional journals in the social sciences knows that you are supposed to start your article with a theory, then make deductions from it, then test it, and then revise the theory. At least that is the policy that journal editors and textbooks routinely support. In practice, however, I believe that this policy encourages-in fact demands, premature theorizing and often leads to making up hypotheses after the fact-which is contrary to the intent of hypothetico–deductive method....My thesis, however, is that the hypothetico–deductive method, even if practiced, actually retards the progress of science.

    One might also go back to an article provided by Mike Zyphur to RMNET on 8/23/12.  Consider the last paragraph:

    Science 23 March 2012:
    Vol. 335 no. 6075 p. 1439
    Finding a Good Research Question, in Theory

    Newton needed an apple, Franklin a flash, Galileo a telescope, and Archimedes a crown. What do these people have in common? They observed a phenomenon that they could not explain, devoted their lives to investigating it, and in doing so achieved groundbreaking discoveries. From observations to hypotheses, from experiments to potential explanations, they conducted every part of the research required to answer the question they had chosen.

    Nowadays, rarely-if ever-can a single scientist start at the beginning of the research process and follow it through all the way to its conclusion. Rather than a marathon, research today resembles a relay race: We focus on a small part of a larger question and then pass the baton to the next scientist. In a system where most advances are incremental, many scientists struggle to pursue original research questions. We identified and evaluated several methods that scientists use to select the subject of their research.

    Some scientists approach the task by picking a theory and reading all the papers within its theoretical framework in search of a question not yet asked. However, the mere fact that some aspect has not been explored yet does not necessarily make it interesting. Others create a problem they think they can solve by applying one of the solutions their theories or methodologies have already provided to them. This may be an engaging intellectual exercise, but it usually leads to sterile research questions, unlinked to the real world. These question-generation strategies lead to smart and creative solutions to problems that do not exist-a phenomenon called Type III error: finding the right answer to the wrong question (1). It seems to us that too much research is based on these approaches, especially in behavioral economics and behavioral sciences.

    There is another way to generate a research question: Go back to the basics. Observe the world, and when you encounter a phenomenon that intrigues you, investigate it. Theories should not be the only source of research questions or the benchmark against which we define what is right and wrong. Shall we abandon a research question when there is no theory from which we could derive our hypotheses? Should we feel compelled to conform our own results only to the mainstream theoretical framework to be accepted in the field? Should we be more concerned about the theory than about the actual problem under investigation? Research runs the risk of growing too dependent on theories, neglecting real-world problems as a result and constraining perspectives and methodologies. If Newton had been preoccupied with established theories, he might have been too busy in his office to realize how surprisingly interesting an apple falling from a tree could be.

    Nicolai Bodemer*,
    Azzurra Ruggeri
    Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
    *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bodemer@mpib-berlin.mpg.de
     

    > Publishing only statistically significant results leads to
    > overestimation of real effect sizes and creates a problem that is
    > both scientific and ethics-related.  Publishing "new results" and
    > failing to see if they replicate is similarly a scientific and
    > ethical problem. (See John Ioannidis' brilliant and scathing
    > analyses of failures to replicate). When a field, because of
    > editorial or scholarly policies, does not live according to the
    > scientific principles it is based on, but promotes itself as if it
    > does, that is certainly an ethics problem. The validity of the
    > inferences we make from our results is highly dependent on working
    > according to statistical principles that are well known and widely
    > ignored. When we KNOW that we are capitalizing on chance, but act as
    > if we are not, that is an ethical violation as far as I am concerned.

    I agree, but again this is, at least partly, a self-inflicted injury.  And the problem is not just publishing statistically significant effects, it also extends to how such results are interpreted.  The review process encourages overgeneralizing and going beyond the data when stating conclusions, and they act as though every study should be the last word on a topic, and null results from a well designed study are not publishable.  Of course, no single study is the last word, and most reasonable conclusions can only be drawn from a body of studies.    

    These problems are also caused by reward systems and vested interests, such as when researching the effectiveness of an intervention one is try to sell to organizations or others, or vying for tenure or promotion, or when universities and researchers like to see their name in the news, or when trying to place oneself in a better position to obtain grant funding, or the desire **to have an impact** on something or someone.  Grant funding is interesting in that one needs to make a case for the importance of the anticipated results before the study is even conducted.

    And in an information age, there is a more troubling issue.  Not many non-reseachers get their information from journals.  They get a digested version from a source (person, company, government, group) that may be incompetent or vested in a particular interpretation.  The internet is full of biased and contrived information, which is where most nontechnically-trained individuals (some mangers?) get their information.  I guess a plug for an educational system that develops critical thinking and evaluation skills early in life.

    Above, are you referring to this open access article:

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    If not, which one?  Though the one above is interesting.  

    A general area that is a case study in the general problems and distortions identified by the Ioannidis article above, and some other ones as well, is the broad literature on employee substance use, especially regarding issues like the prevalence of workplace substance use, the relation of employee substance use to performance and productivity, the utility of EAPs and drug testing, and costs to employers:

    http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318112.aspx

    Mike Frone.

    ****************************************************************
    Michael R. Frone, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Research Institute on Addictions
    State University of New York at Buffalo
    1021 Main Street
    Buffalo, New York 14203

    Office:    716-887-2519
    Fax:        716-887-2477
    E-mail:     frone@ria.buffalo.edu
    Internet:     http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/profiles/frone.html
    ***************************************************************