Monday, May 21, 2012

Scientists Behaving Badly (July 2011)


THE ETHICIST: RESEARCH
Scientists Behaving Badly: Insights from the Fraud Triangle
By Lorraine Eden, Texas A&M University, leden@tamu.edu
Blog No. 2011-02 (July 27, 2011)



NOTE: This posting first appeared on THE ETHICIST, the Academy of Management's ethics blog, http://connect.aomonline.org/resources/614c81fe4f/summary, in Nov 2011. The AOM's THE ETHICIST has three contributors, each one writing a monthly blog in sequence, on (1) research (Lorraine Eden), (2) teaching (Kathy Lund Dean) and (3) professional life (Paul Vaaler). Additional copies of my blog posts, in PDF format, are downloadable from my LinkedIn page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/transferpricingaggies.



Key Insight: Occasionally, journal editors are confronted with evidence that authors have engaged in unethical behaviors such as plagiarism, multiple submissions or fabricating data. What causes scientists to behave badly? I argue that the fraud triangle can provide useful insights into the pressures that lead scholars to engage in research fraud.



<><>
<><>
<><> <><>

From: xxx

To: Lorraine Eden

Sent: Mon 2/22/2010

Subject: ethical question

Hi Lorraine, I have an important ethical question to ask you: I have received the same article from two different journals to review. One journal wants me to send them a regular referee form evaluating the quality of the article and the other wants me to write a commentary on the piece. Should I inform the editors that the manuscript has been submitted to two journals simultaneously? Thanks, xxx



-----Original Message-----

From: Lorraine Eden

Sent: Mon 2/22/2010

To: xxx

Subject: Re: ethical question

Dear xxx, I would inform the editors of both journals, attach the other paper, and not do either review. I'll send you tomorrow my editorial on journal ethics. Lorraine



-----Original Message-----

From: xxx

Sent: Tues 2/23/2010

To: Eden, Lorraine

Subject: Re: ethical question

Lorraine, Thanks for the editorial on the ethics of scientific writing. I found it very useful myself, especially the section on redundancy (self-plagiarism). I was not aware that it would be an issue! Below you will find the reaction of one of the editors. Rather disappointing I think. I would have sent the author a rejection.  Best, xxx



-----Original Message-----

From: xxx

Sent: Tues 2/23/21010

To: EDITOR

Subject: FW: request to review...

Dear EDITOR, Thank you for your kind invitation to write a commentary on paper[ ……] for your journal. I was very surprised when I got your email yesterday as I had just finished reviewing the SAME article for another journal. I asked a couple of senior scholars on the usual procedure for this kind of problem, and they advised me to let you and the other editor know the article had been simultaneously submitted to two venues. I am curious to know how this will play out, so please keep me abreast of the journal's decision regarding this article.  Sincerely, xxx



-----Original Message-----

From: EDITOR

Sent: Tues 2/23/2010

To: xxx

Subject: RE: request to review...

Dear xxx, Thank you so much for this message. This is not acceptable at our journal. I am going to contact the author and I will let you know. As far as I know, the author is currently revising the paper for our journal based on suggestions of two reviewers. If he/she withdraws the submission of the paper from the other journal it would not be a problem here.  Sincerely, EDITOR



I think that most if not all AOM members would see the email exchange above (which actually happened; I made minor revisions to the emails) as unethical behavior by the author. Sending the same or substantially the same paper for review at and possible publication in two different journals is unacceptable behavior at most social science journals.  At least one of the journals was unaware that this was happening, based on one editor’s response, and probably both were unaware. Why would an author engage in this activity? I argue that insights from the fraud triangle can help explain why and when scientists are likely to behave badly.

Fraudulent behavior involves “intentional deception, lying, deceitful pretenses, cunning, willing misrepresentation of material fact, and deliberate trickery intended to gain an unfair and dishonest advantage” (Chui 2010: 8).  Fraud involves deliberate intent – lying – either by (1) concealing relevant facts that the individual is under an obligation to disclose or by (2) distorting relevant facts. Building on this definition, I define research fraud as a deliberate intent by an author to conceal or to distort facts relevant to the research process, all the way from the original research idea through to publication.

Cressey (1953) argued the individuals are more likely to commit fraud when three conditions or pressures occur: opportunity, incentive and rationalization. “[I]nformation asymmetries, uncertainty, or ambiguity combined with absent or lax monitoring and enforcement mechanisms” create opportunity for fraud (Stuebs and Wilkinson 2010: 27).  The individual must also have an incentive (financial, social or otherwise) to commit fraud. Third, the individual must rationalize the act as consistent with his or her code of ethics. Either the individual see the action as compliant (fitting within existing norms or rules) or strategically noncompliant (modifying or stretching the interpretation of the rules or norms so they encompass the action). There is a large literature providing empirical support to the fraud triangle at both the individual and organizational levels (e.g., Hogan, Rezaee, Riley & Velury 2008).

Let’s apply the fraud triangle to the example above where a reviewer is sent the same paper by two journals. Eden (2010) and Schminke (2009) provide other examples of scientists behaving badly where the fraud triangle could also be applied.  (Note that the November 2011 issue of Management and Organization Review (MOR) will also be devoted to research ethics.)

Opportunity, the first corner of the research fraud triangle, comes from informational hazards, weak monitoring and poor enforcement mechanisms.  Clearly, information asymmetries characterize the journal submission process. Individuals voluntarily submit papers to journals for possible publication, and journal editors rely either wholly or primarily on authors to disclose relevant information about their manuscripts. 

Monitoring mechanisms are typically weak. Most journals now have a “check the box” mechanism whereby authors must state that their submission is new and not under review elsewhere. Some journals, such as Journal of International Business Studies, have an elaborate Code of Ethics, and authors are required to “check the box” that they have read and abided by the code (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/jibs_ethics_code.html). However, editors normally cannot verify author statements and, given huge number of submissions, may not have the time or ability for due  diligence. Detection depends on serendipity or accident, as in the case above where the same individual was asked to review both manuscripts. (Monitoring mechanisms may be improving, however, as journals start to run submitted manuscripts through cross-checking programs, such as iThenticate, that highlight overlaps with already published research.)

Lastly, weak enforcement also creates opportunity. As the case above demonstrates, many journal editors may not punish authors for misbehavior. When detection and punishment are low, authors may make a rational benefit-cost calculation and decide to engage in research fraud. 

My search for the phrase “publish or perish” generated more than 450,000 results in Google; clearly, the incentive to engage in research fraud is well known inside and outside of academia.  Publication pressures can occur at any stage of a faculty member’s career, whether searching for the first or a new job, seeking tenure and/or promotion, or merit salary increases. One might expect that pre-tenured faculty face the strongest pressures to publish and therefore might be most expected to engage in research fraud. Schminke (2009: 588), however, found otherwise based on his interviews with 16 journal editors: most ethical violations were not caused by ‘‘junior scholars running ethical yellow lights because of pressures imposed by tenure time lines.’’ Thus, pressures to publish occur across one’s academic career. Moreover, financial rewards can involve more than simple merit pay increases. Some universities now pay a faculty member $US 10,000 or even $20,000 for an AOM publication, providing a strong incentive to engage in research fraud, particularly where opportunity, the first corner of the fraud triangle, is also strong.

The third corner of the research fraud triangle is rationalization. In order to commit research fraud, the scholar must be able to rationalize the action as consistent with his/her code of ethics.  Either the individual sees the action as fitting within existing norms or rules, or they can be bent to encompass the activity. Simple egoism (what benefits me most?) can also be a rationalizing factor.

As a starter, authors may simply be unaware of publication norms and rules; for example, PhD students or junior scholars may not be familiar with existing rules and procedures at major scholarly journals. Authors may “check the box” that they have read and abided by the journal’s ethics code without actually having done so. (How many times have you installed an updated version of a software program where you had to check the box that you had read the terms and conditions, and you checked the box – but didn’t read the 30+ pages of terms and conditions?)

In the case of research fraud above, where the author sends the same paper through the review process at two journals, the author may have also rationalized the behavior on the grounds that the reviewing process of satisfying the demands of two or three reviewers plus an editor, through two or three rounds of review, would result in two sufficiently different papers by the end of the process.  Thus, the ends (two separate publications) justified the means (sending the same paper to two journals).

Moreover, individuals may be conditioned by their colleagues and peers that it is OK because “everyone is doing it”. If authors believe or see other scholars also engaged in strategic noncompliance with ethical norms and rules—particularly where the behavior is not caught and may even be rewarded -- it is easier to rationalize engaging in research fraud.

Cressey (1959) argued that all three corners of the fraud triangle had to occur simultaneously for individuals to engage in fraudulent behaviors. Similarly, I argue that when opportunity, incentive and rationalization combine to create strong pressures to engage in research fraud, we will find scientists behaving badly.

 In another blog, I will talk about how to reduce the pressures for research fraud, but for my first blog on this topic, I would like to hear your views on the topic of pressures to engage in research fraud. Some issues for possible discussion and comments might include (but are not limited to):



1.      What do you see as research fraud?

2.      Please share examples from your own experience – as an author, reviewer and/or editor – of pressures affecting research fraud.

3.      Is the research fraud triangle a useful framework for explaining pressures for scientists to behave badly?

4.      Can you provide other examples of the three pressures (opportunity, incentive and rationalization) in addition to the ones I have above?

5.      Some authors argue the appropriate framework for understanding fraud is a diamond rather than a triangle, adding capability as a fourth pressure (Wolfe & Hermanson 2004). Capability considers personal traits and abilities (e.g., intelligence, experience, creativity, ability to lie and cope with stress) that make it more or less easy for individuals or organizations to successfully commit fraud. Can capability apply to research fraud also?

References

Cressey, D. 1953. Other People’s money; a study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.


Hogan, C.E., Rezaee, Z., Riley, Jr., R.A., & Velury, U.K. 2008. Financial statement fraud: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27.2:  231-252.


Steubs, M., & Wilkinson, B. 2010. Ethics and the tax profession: Restoring the public interest focus. Accounting and the Public Interest, 10: 13-35.

Wolfe, D.T., & Hermanson, D.R. 2004. The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud. The CPA Journal, December: 38-42.



Acknowledgements:   I would like to thank Chi Anyansi-Archibong, Paul Beamish, David Bull, Jim Davis, Kathy Lund Dean, Chuck Hermann, Susan Jackson, Susan Madsen, Janet Salmons, Anne Tsui, Paul Vaaler and C.S. Wong, for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this blog. The views expressed herein are my own.  I would also like to thank the other members of the AOM Ethics Education Committee, the AOM Board of Governors, and Susan Fernandez and Terese Loncar at AOM Headquarters for their support of THE ETHICIST.

  
The Ethicist Terms of Use: AOM, contributors to THE ETHICIST, and AOM officers, staff and volunteers accept no responsibility for the content of all postings on THE ETHICIST, including the opinions and information posted or circulated by users on THE ETHICIST.  The content of all postings is solely the responsibility of the users. AOM cannot warrant the accuracy of any information posted on THE ETHICIST and disclaims all warranties with regard to information circulated on THE ETHICIST.  This disclaimer includes all warranties of merchantability and fitnes

Double-Blind Review (Nov 2011)

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW IN THE AGE OF GOOGLE AND POWERPOINT

By Lorraine Eden, Texas A&M University, leden@tamu.edu

Blog No. 2011-03 (November 1, 2011)



NOTE: This posting first appeared on THE ETHICIST, the Academy of Management's ethics blog, http://connect.aomonline.org/resources/614c81fe4f/summary, in July 2011. The AOM's THE ETHICIST has three contributors, each one writing a monthly blog in sequence, on (1) research (Lorraine Eden), (2) teaching (Kathy Lund Dean) and (3) professional life (Paul Vaaler). Additional copies of my blog posts, in PDF format, are downloadable from my LinkedIn page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/transferpricingaggies.



Key Insight:  Double-blind peer review is one of the academy’s most cherished principles.   Its purpose is to ensure that our scholarly journals make decisions to accept or reject manuscripts based solely on the quality, fit and contribution of the paper. Double-blind review, however, has costs as well as benefits, and may be more fiction than fact in today’s world of Google and PowerPoint. 


1.       Case Examples


Example 1: I was sitting in a job talk where the candidate was reviewing his research activities. The activities were nicely organized into “papers published”, “papers under review” and “in progress”. What caught my attention was the list of journals attached to the “under review” category. The job candidate had listed author names, the paper title, the journal where the paper was under review, and the stage in the reviewing process (first round, R&R, etc.). He then proceeded to briefly discuss each of the papers – even though there was a fairly high probability that one or more of his reviewers was in the room.  



Example 2: I was on a search committee, reading job candidate applications and CVs. I was also writing a couple of P&T letters for candidates up for tenure and promotion at their universities.  In both situations, almost all the CVs listed “work in progress” and provided full details of authors, paper titles, names of journals, and stage in the reviewing process.


Example 3: I’ve also had to recently update and post my own CV on the Texas A&M internal “Howdy” web portal.  State law in Texas now requires that all faculty teaching undergraduate courses must post their CV inside the University web portal so that it is accessible to anyone inside the portal.  I just checked the system, and yes, I am following the herd here. My CV includes full details on papers under review also. My CV is behind a closed electronic door, but still accessible to anyone inside the TAMU electronic walls.


Is there an ethical issue here? What about double-blind peer review?


2.       The benefits of double-blind review

Double-blind review (DBR) requires that authors and reviewers be anonymous to each other throughout the reviewing process.  DBR means that, as an author, I do not know who is reviewing my paper, and, as a reviewer, I do not know who authored the paper.  Quoting Kathryn McKinley,  The purpose of double-blind reviewing is to focus the evaluation process on the quality of the submission by reducing human biases with respect to the authors’ reputation, gender, and institution, by not revealing those details”.  McKinley reviews several studies that find DBR does reduce biases and improve the quality editorial process outcomes. 


A Nature editorial in 2008, on the other hand, reported much more mixed results, arguing there was only one clear benefit: reducing the bias against female authors.  In a subsequent editorial, Nature even retracted that statement, noting the DBR studies on gender bias also had mixed results.  (Whether the absence of DBR induces biases based on gender and/or race still appears to be an ongoing debate, however.)


Still, a 2008 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium of 3,000 academics in the sciences and humanities found that 71% of the respondents had “confidence in the double-blind review process” and 56% preferred it to other forms of review (e.g., single-blind review where the author is known but the reviewers are not).  An updated survey in 2009 by Sense About Science  of over 4,000 academics found that over three-quarters of respondents favored double-blind review on the grounds that it was “the most effective form of peer review because it eliminates bias, encourages forthright opinion and allows the reviewer to focus on the quality of the manuscript”.


3.       Problems with double-blind review

Double-blind review is not without its problems, however.  I provide some examples.  First, the Nature editorial noted that reviewers, on average, can identify at least one of the authors on about 40% of journal submissions.  Moreover, reviewers can google the title of a manuscript and often discover the full paper or a conference abstract paper on the internet. This suggests the reviewing process may not be as “double-blind” as we think. 


Second, an article by Xiao-Ping Chen, “Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process”,  in a forthcoming special issue on journal ethics in Management and Organization Review, provides another criticism. Chen argues that authors can use various unethical strategies to “game” the reviewing system. For example, by sending papers out for review before journal submission, authors may be able to assess which individuals are likely to provide negative reviews. Listing the names of negative reviewers in the paper’s Acknowledgements might persuade the journal editor to not select them as reviewers on the grounds that this would violate double-blind review. Authors might even acknowledge names of individuals known to be hard reviewers, without sending them the paper or receiving comments, deliberately and unethically hoping to influence reviewer selection by a journal editor.


Third, there are some advantages that come with single-blind review. If reviewers know the identity of authors, the questions asked by reviewers can be more pointed. For example, if a team of authors already has two papers published on the same topic with the same database, the reviewers would be more likely to know this and therefore better able to judge the novelty of the current journal submission.  At present, if authors do not fully report their prior research (whether to preserve double-blind review or for the gaming reasons cited by Chen), reviewers may be more likely to over-estimate novelty and more inclined towards a positive review.  My JIBS editorial in issue 41.4, “Scientists behaving Badly”, call this ethical dilemma the “failure to cross-reference”.  



Lastly, email discussions with the advisory panel for THE ETHICIST raised additional concerns. Suppose we wanted to become very serious as authors about maintaining the sanctity of double-blind review. Suppose authors did NOT include information on where their papers were in the reviewing process, either on their CVs or in conference presentations or job talks.  The forced lack of disclosure might be particularly harsh treatment for fresh PhD graduates and junior faculty who need to show their work-in-progress to recruiters.  Moreover, discussing our work-in-progress with colleagues is what we do as scholars; it’s a normal part of the creativity process. Also, given the long lag time between journal submission and publication (often years), it is not surprising that authors present their work at conferences during the reviewing process.  Even at AOM conferences, the rule is that: “Submitted papers must NOT have been previously presented, scheduled for presentation, published, or accepted for publication. If a paper is under review, it must NOT appear in print before the Academy meeting.” These practical concerns suggest that asking authors to “not disclose” information about their papers under review would not only inconvenience the authors, but also damage our professional and educational activities.


4.       Editorial policy options

So, the jury is out: Double-blind review has both benefits and costs. It is not surprising therefore to find that journals vary in terms of their policy choices. The range of policy options can range from no peer review (the editor decides) to the full double-blind review process.  Let me comment on three of the possible policy options.  


First, let’s look at two examples of prestigious organizations that use single-blind review in their journals. 


Nature practices single-blind peer review in all of its journals, where the author is known to the reviewers but not vice versa.  The reason given by Nature for using single-blind review is that: “Nature's policies over the years have generally moved towards greater transparency. Coupling that with the lack of evidence that double-anonymity is beneficial makes this journal resistant to adopting it as the default refereeing policy any time soon.”


In July 2011, the American Economic Association replaced double-blind review with single-blind review (SBR) for all of its journals including the prestigious American Economic Review. The reason given by the AEA for shifting to single-blind review, was: “Easy access to search engines increasingly limits the effectiveness of the double-blind process in maintaining author anonymity. Double-blind refereeing also increases administrative costs of the journals and makes it harder for referees to identify an author’s potential conflicts of interest arising, for example, from consulting”. Commenting in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the AEA policy shift, Jonathan Katz, co-editor of the journal Political Analysis, made the memorable quip that “in the age of Google, double-blind has become a fiction”. 


Second, moving to the opposite polar case, the Code of Ethics of the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), which I developed as editor-in-chief of the journal, is strongly in favor of double-blind review. The code even has a separate section on double-blind review, and mentions DBR several times.  JIBS does occasionally publish single-blind review articles, and these are identified in the journal as single-blind reviewed. Authors, editors and reviewers are told them must “ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process”. Authors are told they must explicitly cite their own earlier work and ideas, but “avoid self-citation that might violate the double-blind review process”. In addition, during the manuscript submission process, authors are requested to “check the box” that their papers will not be posted on the internet while under journal review so as to lessen the likelihood of Katz’s quip about fact becoming fiction. Having said this, I see nothing in the JIBS Code of Ethics that restricts authors from “spilling the beans” to other individuals at conferences, job talks or in their CVs about the status of their papers under review at JIBS, so even JIBS is not as harsh as it could be about DBR.


The third policy option – the “in the middle” one – may be the Academy of Management.  Interestingly, I could not find anything in the AOM Code of Ethics specifically on double-blind review.  AOM journal editors must “ensure the confidentiality of the review process” (4.2.4.2), “ensure the anonymity of reviewers” (4.2.4.4) and “ensure the anonymity of authors” (4.2.4.5). But nowhere in the AOM Code of Ethics are authors restricted from “tooting their own horn” in the ways I have described above. AOM journals, however, do follow the DBR process, according to the journal websites and occasional references to DBR in editorial letters.


My belief (based on asking/emailing a small sample of individuals what they think, discussions at AOM ethics workshops, and so on) is that – if asked – most AOM members would strongly uphold the importance of double-blind review. I suspect they would vote overwhelmingly against AOM journals following Nature and the American Economic Association and shifting from double to single-blind review.   However, this is just a guesstimate on my part.


Still, nowhere do I see admonitions to authors to NOT include the particulars of their work-in-progress and under review articles in their CVs, PowerPoint presentations, and so on.  And regularly I do see individuals as authors violating the DBR process  - and now including myself, a former journal editor who wrote DBR into a code of ethics!

Based on my three mini-cases above, let me rephrase Katz’s remark: In the age of Google and PowerPoint, has double-blind review become a fiction?


5.       Questions for discussion

I hope that my blog posting on double-blind review provides us with some food for thought. Some possible questions for discussion:


  1. As an author, if you have a paper under review at a journal that enforces double-blind review, is it OK for you to provide the information about the status of your paper on your CV or in PowerPoint presentations at conferences, job talks, and the like?
  1. As a reviewer, how often has an author “spilled the beans” to you about the status of his/her paper in the reviewing process at a journal, and you realized that you were one of the reviewers? If that happened to you, what did you do afterwards? Did you tell the journal editor that you now knew the author? What did the editor decide?
  1. As a journal editor, what is your position on double-blind review? If your journal enforces a double-blind reviewing process, what advice as the journal editor do you give authors and reviewers in terms of self-monitoring so that they maintain the double-blind review process? What is your view on authors including full information on the status of their papers in CVs, job talks, and the like? Should authors take “under review at X” and “second R&R at Y” off their CVs, conference presentations and job talks?
  1. As a teacher, what do you tell your PhD students? Should or should they not include full information on papers under review, on their websites, CVs, job applications, and in job talks and conference presentations?
  1. As an AOM member, what is your position on double-blind review? Should AOM follow the path of Nature and the American Economic Association and shift from double to single-blind review? Should we move to an approach where authors self-monitor and do not share information about their papers under review? Or, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, is the status quo “middle-sized bowl” just right?

The Ethicist Terms of Use: AOM, contributors to THE ETHICIST, and AOM officers, staff and volunteers accept no responsibility for the content of all postings on THE ETHICIST, including the opinions and information posted or circulated by users on THE ETHICIST.  The content of all postings is solely the responsibility of the users. AOM cannot warrant the accuracy of any information posted on THE ETHICIST and disclaims all warranties with regard to information circulated on THE ETHICIST.  This disclaimer includes all warranties of merchantability and fitness.