| Title |
Protecting Ideas: Ethical and Legal Considerations When a Grant’s Principal Investigator Changes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9688-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leonidas G. Koniaris, Mary I. Coombs, Eric M. Meslin, Teresa A. Zimmers |
| Abstract |
Ethical issues related the responsible conduct of research involve questions concerning the rights and obligations of investigators to propose, design, implement, and publish research. When a principal investigator (PI) transfers institutions during a grant cycle, financial and recognition issues need to be addressed to preserve all parties' obligations and best interests in a mutually beneficial way. Although grants often transfer with the PI, sometimes they do not. Maintaining a grant at an institution after the PI leaves does not negate the grantee institution's obligation to recognize the PI's original ideas, contributions, and potential rights to some forms of expression and compensation. Issues include maintaining a role for the PI in determining how to take credit for, share and publish results that involve his or her original ideas. Ascribing proper credit can become a thorny issue. This paper provides a framework for addressing situations and disagreements that may occur when a new PI continues the work after the original PI transfers. Included are suggestions for proactively developing institutional mechanisms that address such issues. Considerations include how to develop solutions that comply with the responsible conduct of research, equitably resolve claims regarding reporting of results, and avoid the possibility of plagiarism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 22% |
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 1 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#715
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,953
of 266,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.