Research Ethics Question

[RogueBanana]

Hey all,

I have a quick question on a research ethics dilemma and was hoping someone could clarify.

My research experience is largely clinical & bench. As such, my reports are not historical but investigational. I was having a debate with a colleague this morning and I was hoping for some more input. I have little experience with historical reports so I was hoping to broaden my own knowledge base by asking some of the more accomplished researchers on this site.

Hypothetically, lets say someone has been tasked with writing a research paper on something well known, such as vaccines, or a specific medical procedure.

Like a good researcher, they go out, find sources, textbooks and journals. They find some very extensive historical reports that already exist (since the topic is well known, it stands to reason others have studied it)

We'll assume this report has been assigned to the researcher, as an independent researcher would be unlikely to write a report on something that has already been beaten to death, and no journal would be inclined to publish a paper that offers no new information or ideas.

Here lies the dilemma:

our young researcher may be inclined to read the bibliography/works cited/source list of existing research reports on the subject. Now, this young researcher has an entire list of published journals that cover all the important milestones of vaccination.

I believe that to use this list could be viewed as unethical, because the young researcher did not find these sources himself, and merely capitalized on the work of others. Though he may draw his own conclusions from the sources, and cite them properly. Even still, since this is a historical report, there is little "interpretation" to be done. The student would essentially be rattling off names/dates and thus he is simply re-stating the facts already laid out in the other historical reports.

Maybe his final product would unique in that it would contain sources that individual reports would have missed to create a "master report" but he still would have had most of the work done for him by the writers of these reports. His content, though unique, was acquired by standing on the shoulders of other researchers who went out and found these sources the hard way.


My colleague argues that this is the very definition of research, and since the hypothetical researcher isn't technically plagiarizing (copying verbatim, stealing ideas, failing to cite/quote) he is not committing an ethical violation. He says that the point of research is to build off of the works of others, and that as long as he created original content, where he found his sources would not matter. Especially considering any report on a topic as common as the history of vaccines would contain the same sources and there is no point in doing more work than needs to be done.

What are your thoughts SDN??


TL;DR:
Do you think it's unethical to use the citation lists from several historical research reports to write a new research report instead of finding the sources on your own?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[slippydubloons]

Hey all,

I have a quick question on a research ethics dilemma and was hoping someone could clarify.

My research experience is largely clinical & bench. As such, my reports are not historical but investigational. I was having a debate with a colleague this morning and I was hoping for some more input. I have little experience with historical reports so I was hoping to broaden my own knowledge base by asking some of the more accomplished researchers on this site.

Hypothetically, lets say someone has been tasked with writing a research paper on something well known, such as vaccines, or a specific medical procedure.

Like a good researcher, they go out, find sources, textbooks and journals. They find some very extensive historical reports that already exist (since the topic is well known, it stands to reason others have studied it)

We'll assume this report has been assigned to the researcher, as an independent researcher would be unlikely to write a report on something that has already been beaten to death, and no journal would be inclined to publish a paper that offers no new information or ideas.

Here lies the dilemma:

our young researcher may be inclined to read the bibliography/works cited/source list of existing research reports on the subject. Now, this young researcher has an entire list of published journals that cover all the important milestones of vaccination.

I believe that to use this list could be viewed as unethical, because the young researcher did not find these sources himself, and merely capitalized on the work of others. Though he may draw his own conclusions from the sources, and cite them properly. Even still, since this is a historical report, there is little "interpretation" to be done. The student would essentially be rattling off names/dates and thus he is simply re-stating the facts already laid out in the other historical reports.

Maybe his final product would unique in that it would contain sources that individual reports would have missed to create a "master report" but he still would have had most of the work done for him by the writers of these reports. His content, though unique, was acquired by standing on the shoulders of other researchers who went out and found these sources the hard way.


My colleague argues that this is the very definition of research, and since the hypothetical researcher isn't technically plagiarizing (copying verbatim, stealing ideas, failing to cite/quote) he is not committing an ethical violation. He says that the point of research is to build off of the works of others, and that as long as he created original content, where he found his sources would not matter. Especially considering any report on a topic as common as the history of vaccines would contain the same sources and there is no point in doing more work than needs to be done.

What are your thoughts SDN??

I can't count the number of papers that I've read that are essentially summaries of a field, case reports, clinical guidelines, techniques etc ...just because someone hasn't done a RCT or gotten their hands dirty in a wet lab doesn't mean their work isn't publishable. The young researcher is saving me a ton of time from having to go through all those articles myself to come to the same summary he did. At its core, isn't that what publishing research is? To show/demonstrate things to us, the scientific audience, so that we don't have to go do it ourselves...

Now, as to whether it'll get published - who knows? That's a whole different matter. But I certainly don't see it as being unethical.

 

[RogueBanana]

I can't count the number of papers that I've read that are essentially summaries of a field, case reports, clinical guidelines, techniques etc ...just because someone hasn't done a RCT or gotten their hands dirty in a wet lab doesn't mean their work isn't publishable. The young researcher is saving me a ton of time from having to go through all those articles myself to come to the same summary he did. At its core, isn't that what publishing research is? To show/demonstrate things to us, the scientific audience, so that we don't have to go do it ourselves...

Now, as to whether it'll get published - who knows? That's a whole different matter. But I certainly don't see it as being unethical.

my point was more along the lines of:

Joey's paper has 45 sources on the history of potatoes (almost every source that exists) Joey found these all in the library.
Timmy's paper has 15 sources, but he has a couple that Joey missed. He found these in a different library.

Jason takes Joey's source list, combines it with Timmy's and now has a complete source list for everything published on pubmed about the history of potatoes.

Is Jason wrong to take Joey's sources and simply add a few missing ones, draw his own report up and take credit for it?

 

[JustAPhD]

TL;DR:
Do you think it's unethical to use the citation lists from several historical research reports to write a new research report instead of finding the sources on your own?

No.

 

[NotASerialKiller]

Useful review articles come from experts in a given field because they have insight on that topic and are trusted/known.

What you're describing just sounds like the kind of paper that you have to write for a lot of upper year undergrad classes, and I don't know why anyone would volunteer to write another one. Not unethical, but it also sounds pretty pointless.

 

[RogueBanana]

Useful review articles come from experts in a given field because they have insight on that topic and are trusted/known.

What you're describing just sounds like the kind of paper that you have to write for a lot of upper year undergrad classes, and I don't know why anyone would volunteer to write another one. Not unethical, but it also sounds pretty pointless.

Well yeah its completely pointless. I was just pondering weather it was ethical or nah

 

[slippydubloons]

my point was more along the lines of:

Joey's paper has 45 sources on the history of potatoes (almost every source that exists) Joey found these all in the library.
Timmy's paper has 15 sources, but he has a couple that Joey missed. He found these in a different library.

Jason takes Joey's source list, combines it with Timmy's and now has a complete source list for everything published on pubmed about the history of potatoes.

Is Jason wrong to take Joey's sources and simply add a few missing ones, draw his own report up and take credit for it?

Still not unethical. People will always miss sources. A big point of the paper getting reviewed is to see if it makes any impact or contribution to the field, if the individual doesn't add anything and merely copies the content of the other papers then they'll get roasted/unpublished/have wasted a lot of their time. The ability to synthesize relevant information and present it with *novel* insight is likely the whole point of the paper. If Timmy just copies it, then the checks and balances nature of publishing will hopefully keep his work unpublished.

 

[slippydubloons]

Useful review articles come from experts in a given field because they have insight on that topic and are trusted/known.

What you're describing just sounds like the kind of paper that you have to write for a lot of upper year undergrad classes, and I don't know why anyone would volunteer to write another one. Not unethical, but it also sounds pretty pointless.

Agreed that it's largely pointless!

 

[RogueBanana]

Still not unethical. People will always miss sources. A big point of the paper getting reviewed is to see if it makes any impact or contribution to the field, if the individual doesn't add anything and merely copies the content of the other papers then they'll get roasted/unpublished/have wasted a lot of their time. The ability to synthesize relevant information and present it with *novel* insight is likely the whole point of the paper. If Timmy just copies it, then the checks and balances nature of publishing will hopefully keep his work unpublished.

Oh I agree 100%, which is why I stated it would never be published because it made no meaningful contributions to the field! I just was wondering if it was past the point of "d*ck move" and more in the area of plagiarism.

 

[slippydubloons]

Oh I agree 100%, which is why I stated it would never be published because it made no meaningful contributions to the field! I just was wondering if it was past the point of "d*ck move" and more in the area of plagiarism.

Yeah I see what you mean, now. Definitely not plagiarism from MY perspective haha

 

[RogueBanana]

Yeah I see what you mean, now. Definitely not plagiarism from MY perspective haha

I'm more of a wet-work researcher. I can appreciate a good historical report, but there's nothing like looking inside a test tube and saying "huh, that's funny..."
I'm admittedly poorly versed on the subject of historical research

 

[NotASerialKiller]

I just was wondering if it was past the point of "d*ck move" and more in the area of plagiarism.

It's not a vag**a move (#feminism), in fact if you find a paper that is relevant to the topic you're researching, looking at who they reference is crucial.

 

[libertyyne]

my point was more along the lines of:

Joey's paper has 45 sources on the history of potatoes (almost every source that exists) Joey found these all in the library.
Timmy's paper has 15 sources, but he has a couple that Joey missed. He found these in a different library.

Jason takes Joey's source list, combines it with Timmy's and now has a complete source list for everything published on pubmed about the history of potatoes.

Is Jason wrong to take Joey's sources and simply add a few missing ones, draw his own report up and take credit for it?

You just recreated a systematic review. Nothing wrong with this. Completely ethical as long as you cite everything.

 

[Goro]

The answer is no. And what you're describing is a review article. These are quite common.

Hey all,

I have a quick question on a research ethics dilemma and was hoping someone could clarify.

My research experience is largely clinical & bench. As such, my reports are not historical but investigational. I was having a debate with a colleague this morning and I was hoping for some more input. I have little experience with historical reports so I was hoping to broaden my own knowledge base by asking some of the more accomplished researchers on this site.

Hypothetically, lets say someone has been tasked with writing a research paper on something well known, such as vaccines, or a specific medical procedure.

Like a good researcher, they go out, find sources, textbooks and journals. They find some very extensive historical reports that already exist (since the topic is well known, it stands to reason others have studied it)

We'll assume this report has been assigned to the researcher, as an independent researcher would be unlikely to write a report on something that has already been beaten to death, and no journal would be inclined to publish a paper that offers no new information or ideas.

Here lies the dilemma:

our young researcher may be inclined to read the bibliography/works cited/source list of existing research reports on the subject. Now, this young researcher has an entire list of published journals that cover all the important milestones of vaccination.

I believe that to use this list could be viewed as unethical, because the young researcher did not find these sources himself, and merely capitalized on the work of others. Though he may draw his own conclusions from the sources, and cite them properly. Even still, since this is a historical report, there is little "interpretation" to be done. The student would essentially be rattling off names/dates and thus he is simply re-stating the facts already laid out in the other historical reports.

Maybe his final product would unique in that it would contain sources that individual reports would have missed to create a "master report" but he still would have had most of the work done for him by the writers of these reports. His content, though unique, was acquired by standing on the shoulders of other researchers who went out and found these sources the hard way.


My colleague argues that this is the very definition of research, and since the hypothetical researcher isn't technically plagiarizing (copying verbatim, stealing ideas, failing to cite/quote) he is not committing an ethical violation. He says that the point of research is to build off of the works of others, and that as long as he created original content, where he found his sources would not matter. Especially considering any report on a topic as common as the history of vaccines would contain the same sources and there is no point in doing more work than needs to be done.

What are your thoughts SDN??


TL;DR:
Do you think it's unethical to use the citation lists from several historical research reports to write a new research report instead of finding the sources on your own?

 

[aldol16]

You're essentially writing a review article. In a review, you should not recapitulate the style of older reviews, but you are free to use their reference lists. However, you should also not copy their list exactly because the point of a review is to review the current state of the field because there hasn't been a recent review. To do a review on a field that was recently reviewed is pointless and defeats the purpose of a review. Therefore, you want to pick the most impactful and important discoveries from the past (the central works cited by previous review articles) while including a lot of recent work that has gone on since then. Usually, it'll be 5-1o years since the last review so there will be significant advances in the field that you will want to focus on.

A similar type of article is a perspective, which you can think of as a mini-review that summarizes the literature on a topic published within 3-5 years and serves to direct future research in the field. The author(s) do this by infusing their own interpretations and discussions into the perspective based on the data that was been recently generated by the cited works.

 

[ChrisMack390]

This is literally how you do research. It is called a line of research for a reason.

Whoever wrote this question has never done actual research.

WTF else WOULD you suggest? Just blindly search random terms related to your topic? Type "gastric cancer" into pubmed and reading every single article?

 

[aldol16]

This is literally how you do research. It is called a line of research for a reason.

Whoever wrote this question has never done actual research.

WTF else WOULD you suggest? Just blindly search random terms related to your topic? Type "gastric cancer" into pubmed and reading every single article?

I would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. I believe this because when doing "research" in this sense for a review article (which is exactly what OP is talking about), one should use previous reviews' reference lists as a starting point but should not recapitulate that review. If someone feels like he/she has to recapitulate a review, then the review he/she is writing isn't necessary. The new review should review existing literature, with an emphasis on current research in the field that has taken place since the last review.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. I believe this because when doing "research" in this sense for a review article (which is exactly what OP is talking about), one should use previous reviews' reference lists as a starting point but should not recapitulate that review. If someone feels like he/she has to recapitulate a review, then the review he/she is writing isn't necessary. The new review should review existing literature, with an emphasis on current research in the field that has taken place since the last review.

Sure. This isn't ALL of how you do research. However it is a very important piece, from writing a proposal and selecting your methods through writing a manuscript.

 

[aldol16]

Sure. This isn't ALL of how you do research. However it is a very important piece, from writing a proposal and selecting your methods through writing a manuscript.

Well, I believe OP is talking about something a bit different than drafting a proposal or manuscript. When you're writing a proposal, you're using those references to make your own unique point. You're not just surveying the literature but rather interpreting some of the data. You might start with a known review but you'll be basing most of your proposal on two or three recent works that directly leads to yours. Writing a manuscript is similar - at least the introduction and discussion section of the manuscript. There's a lot of interjecting your own ideas and interpretations into it so that the references are just that - to refer readers to the source of the data but not to somebody else's interpretation. That's a huge difference from writing a review, in which there isn't much opportunity to inject your own ideas and interpretations into the work (much unlike a perspective).

 

[LizzyM]

Is this whole thing really necessary with the availability of Google Scholar and other medical library search engines? The alternative, for scholars, is to keep a folder (real or electronic) of material related to one's research interests and to keep the folder updated in real time as relevant papers are published. Reading the literature can sometimes point you to citations you might not have otherwise found but it isn't "cheating".

Funny story: the author of a chapter in a textbook was asked by the editor, a very elderly retired scientist, to include as a citation a paper published about 60 years earlier. Knowing the editor personally, I pointed out that the topic of the chapter was also the topic of his dissertation and that, in all likelihood, he had read that paper as a graduate student when it was published!

 

[mcloaf]

His content, though unique, was acquired by standing on the shoulders of other researchers

AKA all of published research.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Well, I believe OP is talking about something a bit different than drafting a proposal or manuscript. When you're writing a proposal, you're using those references to make your own unique point. You're not just surveying the literature but rather interpreting some of the data. You might start with a known review but you'll be basing most of your proposal on two or three recent works that directly leads to yours. Writing a manuscript is similar - at least the introduction and discussion section of the manuscript. There's a lot of interjecting your own ideas and interpretations into it so that the references are just that - to refer readers to the source of the data but not to somebody else's interpretation. That's a huge difference from writing a review, in which there isn't much opportunity to inject your own ideas and interpretations into the work (much unlike a perspective).

That's fine. Still doesn't mean using a list of citations from another review is "cheating". It's being efficient. This is, of course, assuming you cited everything as appropriate.

 

[efle]

I don't really understand the dilemma. He's just making a review that will contribute very little because it's a summery/mashup of a couple other reviews, with no coverage of new information? Not unethical, also not interesting/likely to find itself published

 

[ChrisMack390]

I don't really understand the dilemma. He's just making a review that will contribute very little because it's a summery/mashup of a couple other reviews, with no coverage of new information? Not unethical, also not interesting/likely to find itself published

That's why I said whoever wrote this has obviously never conducted research.

 

[RogueBanana]

That's why I said whoever wrote this has obviously never conducted research.

I have conducted research and been published....

Perhaps I phrased this poorly,

Basically, the student is copying the sources for a review article and writing his own while adding little/no new content.

I know it would not be published since it doesn't contribute to the field. I was just pondering weather it was technically unethical or just a jerk thing to do.

 

[RogueBanana]

This is literally how you do research. It is called a line of research for a reason.

Whoever wrote this question has never done actual research.

WTF else WOULD you suggest? Just blindly search random terms related to your topic? Type "gastric cancer" into pubmed and reading every single article?

I know how research works. I'm not suggesting the researcher go out and look up every pubmed article about it.

It just seems sketchy to rip off someone's source list and publish it with little effort/work done on your part.

 

[slippydubloons]

and publish it

that's the key though, it won't get published...so it's just that person's time being wasted

I'd equate it to something like the following - say you see a patent of a cool item. You go out, recreate the development of that item from scratch (maybe build the models in CAD yourself etc. etc.) and then present it to the US Patent and Trademark Office. You won't get the patent for the item, and so it'll have just been a waste of your time.

I now realize the irony of my writing this post considering me and the above posters have already reiterated this lol dammit

 

[RogueBanana]

that's the key though, it won't get published...so it's just that person's time being wasted

I'd equate it to something like the following - say you see a patent of a cool item. You go out, recreate the development of that item from scratch (maybe build the models in CAD yourself etc. etc.) and then present it to the US Patent and Trademark Office. You won't get the patent for the item, and so it'll have just been a waste of your time.

I now realize the irony of my writing this post considering me and the above posters have already reiterated this lol dammit

Oh for sure, it would be a huge waste of time. I just personally think that unless you're making a meaningful contribution to the field (as opposed to re-writing someone elses review) it doesn't really count as real research.

Obviously if there were significant advances in the field, a new report would be warranted and the new information be included and published.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I know how research works. I'm not suggesting the researcher go out and look up every pubmed article about it.

It just seems sketchy to rip off someone's source list and publish it with little effort/work done on your part.

That is for the peer reviewers and journal editorial staff to determine. If you are asking whether this article is fit to publish, the answer is probably no. You phrased it as an ethical dilemma, which it really isn't. It's just a ****ty paper.

 

[aldol16]

That's fine. Still doesn't mean using a list of citations from another review is "cheating". It's being efficient. This is, of course, assuming you cited everything as appropriate.

No, of course simply the act of using a list of references is not cheating. What's important is not where you found the sources but what you're saying about them. If you're recapitulating another review closely, i.e. paraphrasing, then that is plagiarism. If you're using the references and drawing your own conclusions and interpretations, then it's not.

 

[aldol16]

Basically, the student is copying the sources for a review article and writing his own while adding little/no new content.

I know it would not be published since it doesn't contribute to the field. I was just pondering weather it was technically unethical or just a jerk thing to do.

It's neither unethical nor a jerk thing to do. It's simply a waste of your time.

 

[RogueBanana]

No, of course simply the act of using a list of references is not cheating. What's important is not where you found the sources but what you're saying about them. If you're recapitulating another review closely, i.e. paraphrasing, then that is plagiarism. If you're using the references and drawing your own conclusions and interpretations, then it's not.

just for the sake of argument,
if it is a historical report, you really aren't going to be having any new thoughts (its not like history is changing) so unless you add new updates wouldn't that by definition make it plagiarism?

*Edit*
to respond to your other comment, I'm not doing this or considering doing it. This was just a "shower thought" I had.

 

[aldol16]

if it is a historical report, you really aren't going to be having any new thoughts (its not like history is changing) so unless you add new updates wouldn't that by definition make it plagiarism?

Any academic work will be centered on a central thesis. You will be using historical sources and information to make some sort of an argument. Otherwise, what's the point of the paper you are writing? If you read any academic historical work that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, you will find that they all make some argument and that is what is unique about them. Historical review articles will review the state of the field and go into recent authors' interpretations of historical events.

I think what you don't understand is that what's important in any sort of writing isn't what references you use but rather how you interpret those references. That's the essence of research in the humanities. Historical facts do not change but human interpretation of those facts do. In the immediate years following Chamberlain's "peace of our time," people thought he was a great man and had achieved a great and lasting peace. Now, the general consensus is that he was only contributing to Hitler's increasing boldness by appeasing him. If you read any historical journal, you'll find many articles arguing for interpretations and re-interpretations of such historical events.

 

[RogueBanana]

Any academic work will be centered on a central thesis. You will be using historical sources and information to make some sort of an argument. Otherwise, what's the point of the paper you are writing? If you read any academic historical work that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, you will find that they all make some argument and that is what is unique about them. Historical review articles will review the state of the field and go into recent authors' interpretations of historical events.

I think what you don't understand is that what's important in any sort of writing isn't what references you use but rather how you interpret those references. That's the essence of research in the humanities. Historical facts do not change but human interpretation of those facts do. In the immediate years following Chamberlain's "peace of our time," people thought he was a great man and had achieved a great and lasting peace. Now, the general consensus is that he was only contributing to Hitler's increasing boldness by appeasing him. If you read any historical journal, you'll find many articles arguing for interpretations and re-interpretations of such historical events.

Interesting, thanks for the insight friend! I'll have to do more research (lol) on the humanities, they were never my strong suit...