Responsible Conduct of Research - From Unpublishable to Publishable - Professional Roles and Publishable Writing

Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success - Mary Renck Jalongo, Olivia N. Saracho 2016

Responsible Conduct of Research
From Unpublishable to Publishable
Professional Roles and Publishable Writing

Yet another ethical issue in writing has to do with ethical, principled behavior in research. Fundamental to this goal is adherence to the principles of informed consent when working with human subjects and obtaining approval to proceed with the research from an Institutional Review Board. The six basic principles of informed consent are in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5

Six principles of informed consent

Participants have a right to know:

1. The purpose of the data collection

2. Why and how they were selected to participate

3. The time commitment involved should they choose to participate

4. How their data will be handled in terms of confidentiality or anonymity

5. That participation is voluntary and no negative consequences will come to them should they choose not to participate

6. How they can withdraw at any time from the study

Due to concerns about litigation, publishers may require authors to supply evidence that their research went through a human subjects review process. If this is not something that is required or expected in another country, it can become an obstacle to publication. It also is common practice to require authors to disclose any possible conflicts of interest, such as financially benefitting from the article’s publication. For example, if a medical researcher has conducted drug trials, continued major funding for research may hinge on reporting that the medication was highly effective and had few side effects; therefore, this information has to be disclosed (Stichler & Nielsen, 2014). Another type of disclosure required is when the work was supported by a grant. The funding group may require authors to include a disclaimer that the statements made are the authors’ and do not reflect the grantor’s point of view. It is becoming the norm for journals to require authors to verify this information as a condition of publication.