Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
A related issue is that of author order, since readers may assume that the first author
is the main contributor. A researcher who is clearly the main contributor should be
listed first—don't believe Alfred Aaby when he tells you that alphabetic ordering is
the norm.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Researchers need to respect each other's privacy. Sharing of a computer system with
other people does not mean that one has the right to use their data without permission,
for example, or to disclose their results to other people. Code or executables may
be made available under terms such as commercial-in-confidence, and the fact that
many people use commercial software they haven't paid for does not mean that it is
appropriate for researchers to do so. (Use of commercial software presents challenges
for reproducibility of the work by other people, who may lack the required licenses
or the resources to acquire them, which is a reason to prefer open-source software in
experimental work.)
Commercial relationships may need to be disclosed to editors or in the text of a
submitted paper. Researchers who are publishing work on products or technologies
should not conceal their involvement with the companies that own these products.
Another area where there is potential for conflict of interest is in refereeing of
papers and grant proposals, and examination of theses. Researchers should not referee
a paper where there is a possible conflict of interest, or where there is some reasonable
likelihood that it will be difficult for the referee to maintain objectivity; or even
where others might reasonably suspect that the referee would be unable to maintain
objectivity. Examples include papers by a recent advisor, student, or co-author of the
referee, or an author with whom the referee recently had close interaction, including
not only personal or employment relationships but also situations such as competition
for an appointment. In such cases, the referee should return the paper to the editor
(and explain why).
It can be difficult to maintain objectivity if the author's opinions strongly conflict
with your own. Make every effort to be fair, or seek an alternative referee. Also,
your evaluation should be based on the paper alone; don't be swayed by the stature
of the author or institution. Perhaps the trickiest case is that of a paper replicating
your current work, or worse, is a faulty version of work you are currently doing but
illustrates that you have made mistakes too. Probably the only solution is to contact
the editor, state the case, and seek guidance. Whatever you do, act quickly; delay
hurts the author.
A related issue is of confidentiality: papers are submitted in confidence and are not
in the public domain. Papers you are reviewing should not be shown to colleagues,
except as part of the refereeing process; nor should they be used as a basis for your
own research. In practice there is something of a grey area—it is impossible not to
learn from papers you are refereeing, or to ignore the impact of their contents on
your own work. Nonetheless, the confidentiality of papers should be respected.
