Blog Viewer

Here's a suggested revision to one small part of the existing guidelines. 

Existing:

Responsibilities Regarding Allegations of Misconduct

The ethical statistician understands the differences between questionable statistical, scientific, or professional practices and practices that constitute misconduct. The ethical statistician avoids all of the above and knows how each should be handled.

Suggested Revision

Responsibilities Regarding Allegations of Misconduct

The ethical statistician understands the differences between legitimate practice and questionable statistical, scientific, or professional activities that constitute misconduct. The ethical statistician avoids all of the above suspicious activity and knows how to respond to each should they be seen to occur.

with

A paper published to a preprint archive (so, possibly not peer reviewed) in 2020 has created new ethical data science material that doesn't mention the ASA Guidelines at all, one reason they give is that the ASA Ethical Guidelines "explore ethics in statistical practice but don’t mention newer concepts like algorithmic bias." One way to address the "statistics and data science" question posted in earlier comments is to make sure that all of the concerns that non-statistician/data scientists may feel are lacking in the current guidelines get an explicit mention (like algorithm bias).

I posted this suggestion in the discussion forum by mistake. My suggestion is that the ASA, and the COPE in its guidelines, specifically endorse the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria of four characteristics required to classify any person as an "author" on a paper:
"The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged-see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript."

which are posted here:
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

These characteristics specifically are recommended for their international scope and consensus base; although the editors involved in the criteria are in medical research, these authorship specifics are not unique to that environment. To the extent that any ASA member might need to deviate from these criteria, that should be justifiable (and should be transparently reported).

This recommendation is consistent with the 2017 NAS/NAE/IoM report, "Fostering Integrity In Research" available here: https://www.nap.edu/download/21896
"RECOMMENDATION FIVE: Societies and journals should develop clear disciplinary authorship standards. Standards should be based on the principle that those who have made a significant intellectual contribution are authors. Significant intellectual contributions can be made in the design or conceptualization of a study, the conduct of research, the analysis or interpretation of data, or the drafting or revising of a manuscript for intellectual content. Those who engage in these activities should be designated as authors of the reported work, and all authors should approve the final manuscript. In addition to specifying all authors, standards should (1) provide for the identification of one or more authors who assume responsibility for the entire work, (2) require disclosure of all author roles and contributions, and (3) specify that gift or honorary authorship, coercive authorship, ghost authorship, and omitting authors who have met the articulated standards are always unacceptable. Societies and journals should work expeditiously to develop such standards in disciplines that do not already have them."

Currently, the Guidelines only include three statements relating to publication and (directly or indirectly), authorship:

A. 4, "When establishing authorship order for posters, papers, and other scholarship, strives to make clear the basis for this order, if determined on grounds other than intellectual contribution."
A.6, "Accepts full responsibility for his/her professional performance. Provides only expert testimony, written work, and oral presentations that he/she would be willing to have peer reviewed."
B. 3, "In publications, reports, or testimony, identifies who is responsible for the statistical work if it would not otherwise be apparent."

My recommendation is to add, to A4 or as a unique element in Principle A, "Adheres to all four ICMJE criteria for authorship; requiring and taking opportunities to contribute to, and review the final version of, any work on which their name will appear as an author."

I have a suggestion for the organization of these elicitation links. I think that, in case people have general comments, or suggestions that  don't neatly fit with specific (or do, but fit with more than one) Principles, then just after, "Your suggestions should be as specific and complete as possible so that the Committee or its designated Working Group can review and consider your suggestions and input." it should include the statement  that, "In case you have general comments, or suggestions that don't neatly fit with specific Principles (or do, but fit with more than one), then you should put your comment here (below)."