The ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…’
Article Outline
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.
Samuel Johnson (1709–1784).
As an editor I have the pleasure of working with some of the most knowledgeable, humble, innovative and hardworking individuals in the discipline. It is exciting to see the pride an author takes in the product of their ideas and experience and, after feedback and input from anonymous reviewers, bring those to life through words. And it is gratifying to hear how readers find the manuscripts in the journal helpful as they try to solve similar puzzles in nursing. These experiences make an editor feel like forging the connections between authors, reviewers, and readers is clearly worth all the effort.
At the core and foundation of published scholarship is the fundamental assumption that what is reported in print is ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’ After teaching nursing science courses in PhD and DNSc programs for 20 years, I am the first to admit that there is (thank goodness) no one truth, and that everyone's perception of a phenomenon will differ at least a little bit (and sometimes a great deal). But in the business of journal publishing, editors must constantly work to obtain convergence of different opinions put forth by individual reviewers so authors may use the critiques constructively to improve their manuscripts. Editors must take care to reduce their own bias and to always tell, and validate with others, as close a picture to reality that they can. And authors have a responsibility to be as transparent and honest as possible. Yet, author misconduct does occasionally occur.1
The literature is replete with references to scientific misconduct, which ranges from plagiarism, fabrication and falsification, to incomplete reports of data collection, and intentional misinterpretations of existing literature to support one's own data.2, 3 Two types of misconduct related to published works is denial of authorship or, on the other end of that continuum, the awarding of honorary authorship. Both are dishonest and threaten the foundational assumptions on which a community of scholars operates. Clear guidelines about authorship accepted by most journals can be found on the Website of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.4 According to those guidelines, an “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study, including the conceptualization, acquisition, or analysis of data, drafting of the manuscript, and approval of the manuscript to be published.
When authors take credit for work that is not their own, do not share credit with others who shaped their ideas and outcomes, or give away authorship to someone who was not integrally involved in the generation, implementation, and description of the idea, the community of scholars suffers. Sometimes this presents as blatant plagiarism and sometimes as a dispute between authors about who did and didn't contribute to the development of a manuscript.
Speculation about the reasons for misconduct have been written about and include pressures of promotion and tenure, financial conflict of interest, need for recognition, and poor mentoring.5 In my experience, I think this behavior reflects a sense of arrogance and the belief that the rules simply don't apply to oneself, presumably because one is unique and deserves different treatment. Passing off ideas and experiences as one's own, when they are not, and refusing to acknowledge, in authorship or acknowledgements, how others shape one's ideas and work is just simply dishonest and “dreadful.” But is it “dangerous”?
Some would argue yes. In some disciplines, claiming something is true when it is not can lead to alterations in practice that could waste money, time, and even cost patients in terms of health outcomes. In other disciplines, the cost of taking undue credit is not found in changes in health status or treatment patterns but in collegiality, integrity and, ultimately, the erosion of trust from one's colleagues.
Most experts who study scientific misconduct suggest that mentoring is a key component to developing integrity in new professionals. But exactly how do we teach new authors who should be included as authors, and who should not? How do we mentor students to identify their own conflicts of interest when reviewing a manuscript in their area of expertise? As discussed above, for some of these questions the answers can be found in existing guidelines.4 For others (the “softer, more moralistic” issues), I think the responsibility lies with each of us as mentors for future nurses, nurse educators, and nurse scientists. Many of the readers of this journal are in positions of power, prestige and influence. Our students, mentees, and employees are watching how consistent we are in our behavior and our verbal proclamations about what is important, how many deals we engage in that favor some over others. That is how they will learn to behave like professionals, and scholars. As we work with our students6 and colleagues to create, implement, and then report on new ideas, innovations, or best practices, we teach them—through offers of joint authorship (or not)—how to work with, but recognize and honor the contributions of all involved. Although none of us are perfect (what fun would that be?), we know how to share credit for “good stuff that happens” with others and, when we are wrong, how to admit we would do something very different next time. These are the real lessons of professional mentoring and we all need to make sure we are the best teachers we can be. The community of scholars on which we, and the profession of nursing depends, deserves no less.
References
- . Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. West J Nurs Res. 2005;27:487-49
- . Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1:43–50
- . Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005;435:737–738
- . www.icmje.comAccessed on October 5, 2008
- . Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:365–369
- . Graduate students and the culture of authorship. Ethics Behav. 2006;16:217–232
Marion E. Broome, is a Dean and Distinguished Professor, School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
PII: S0029-6554(08)00272-8
doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.10.001
© 2008 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
