See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318455868

Good and bad scientific practice

Presentation · May 2011

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35876.99207

CITATIONS READS

0 2,025

1 author:

Peter Sigmund
University of Southern Denmark
282 PUBLICATIONS   10,430 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nuclear stopping in transmission experiments View project

Sputtering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Sigmund on 16 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Good and Bad Scientific Practice∗
Peter Sigmund
Department of Physics and Chemistry
University of Southern Denmark, Odense
June 5, 2011

1 Introduction
Good scientific practice is more of an attitude than a set of rules. It is an attitude which you should acquire by monitoring
your scientific environment, your international peers, your fellow students and your advisor(s), and by applying your own
judgement of what you find good or bad. Nevertheless, there are written and unwritten rules which it is advisable to follow
if you want to avoid trouble. And if you decide not to follow one of those rules it is advisable to know some possible
consequences.
To strengthen the integrity of Danish research the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (Udvalgene vedrørende Viden-
skabelig Uredelighed, in short UVVU) were established to investigate and consider allegations on research misconduct in
Denmark. There are similar organizations in other countries such as the Office of Research Integrity in the USA. Most
important is the very existence of such organizations. The less they have to do, the better. But experience tells that there
is work for them, and sometimes, students and junior researchers are involved. This is why I am addressing you here.
We do not have courses in scientific misconduct, and hopefully we shall never need them. And if, after the talk, you
let me know that you were familiar with everything I told you, I apologize for having vasted your time.

1.1 Terminology
We distinguish between research misconduct and good research practice. Research misconduct (scientific dishonesty) is
defined by law, and a violation is a serious offence which may have consequences for your job. Good research practice
is less rigorously defined, it is more like a goal to aim at, and minor violations occur all the time. Such violations may,
however, affect your reputation as a scientist amongst your peers, amongst your colleagues and, not the least, amongst
your students.

1.2 Formal Rules

The legal basis for the activities of UVVU is the Act on the Research Advisory System [1], approved by Parliament,
according to which the definition of Scientific Dishonesty is: ‘Falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious
violations of good scientific practice committed wilfully or grossly negligent on planning, performance or reporting of
research results.’ Included hereunder are:

• Undisclosed fabrication and construction of data or substitution with fictitious data.

• Undisclosed selective or surreptitious discarding of a person’s own undesired results.

• Undisclosed unusual and misleading use of statistical methods.

• Undisclosed biased or distorted interpretation of a person’s own results and conclusions.

• Plagiarisation of other persons’ results or publications.

• A false credit given to the author or authors, misrepresentation of title or workplace.

• Submission of incorrect information about scientific qualifications.

∗ Based on a lecture presented to Philos, the association of PhD students at the Faculty of Science of the University of Southern Denmark, 3 May

2011.
Note the repeated occurrence of the term ‘undisclosed’. In its absence, several of the above actions would rather sort
under the heading of bad scientific practice. You probably have encountered minor violations, e.g. somebody interpreting
results as supporting a theory even though they don’t. Doing so may not be clever, it may even be stupid, but for it to
become dishonest there must be the undisclosed intention to conceal pertinent information to the reader.
Our university has formulated its own set of rules on good scientific practice. You may find them (in Danish) in
ref. [2]. Good scientific practice is here defined primarily as lacking conflict with the rules on scientific dishonesty, but
also ethical requirements are mentioned. Similar documents have been issued by other universities.

1.3 Useful documents

• Firstly I like to mention a document issued by UVVU [3, 4] which is quite explicit with regard to a number issues
pertaining to the biomedical area.
• Figure 1 shows a useful compendium, which you may download freely from the internet.

On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible

Conduct in Research: Third Edition
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, and Institute of Medicine
ISBN: 0-309-11971-5, 82 pages, 6 x 9, (2009)
This free PDF was downloaded from:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192.html

Figure 1:

• A recent document which may be expected to become influential is the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
shown in figure 2 which has been formulated and accepted at a 2010 conference in Singapore. The Singapore
Statement is an NGO document, i.e. it is not a legally binding instrument. Nonetheless, the principles of the
statement are expected to serve as a basis for legislators and research institutions worldwide.

2 How to survive
What I shall discuss from now on is more some inofficial code of conduct than a set of formal rules. The focus is to some
degree influenced by my personal experience, but I hope that I am not too far from mainstream.

2.1 Documentation
Keep your documentation, in particular

• Lab records,
• Computer codes and output,
• Calculations,
• Data treatment and statistics.

This is important in your correspondence with colleagues, not the least those who have arrived at different results. It is also
important for yourself and your collaborators in your later work when you may actually have forgotten some essentials.
And it is important if it should happen that somebody charges you of misconduct.
How much should you keep? In principle, everything that is necessary to reproduce your results. If you are a mathe-
matician with a good memory, you may not have to keep anything, but if your work involves collecting experimental data,
the necessary records may occupy significant space, physical or virtual.
How long should you keep your records? It is a matter of fact that there are scientists that have been charged of
misconduct and had their entire scientific production investigated. For an honest scientist it must be a clear advantage
to have all necessary documentation accessible. A minimum number of years is needed in investigations of a dishonest

2
 Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
P

 


 


 

  
 


  

  

  



 
 
t    


  


    
 


c 


  
   

t
  


  


  

  


 

i

PRINCIPLES
Honesty in all aspects of research
Accountability in the conduct of research
Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others
Good stewardship of research on behalf of others
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Integrity: Researchers should take responsibility for the
trustworthiness of their research.
2. Adherence to Regulations: Researchers should be aware
of and adhere to regulations and policies related to research.
3. Research Methods: Researchers should employ
appropriate research methods, base conclusions on critical
analysis of the evidence and report findings and
interpretations fully and objectively.
4. Research Records: Researchers should keep clear, accurate
records of all research in ways that will allow verification and
replication of their work by others.
5. Research Findings: Researchers should share data and
findings openly and promptly, as soon as they have had an
opportunity to establish priority and ownership claims.
6. Authorship: Researchers should take responsibility for
their contributions to all publications, funding applications,
reports and other representations of their research. Lists of
authors should include all those and only those who meet
applicable authorship criteria.
7. Publication Acknowledgement: Researchers should
acknowledge in publications the names and roles of those
who made significant contributions to the research,
including writers, funders, sponsors, and others, but do not
meet authorship criteria.
8. Peer Review: Researchers should provide fair, prompt and
rigorous evaluations and respect confidentiality when
reviewing others' work.
9. Conflict of Interest: Researchers should disclose financial
and other conflicts of interest that could compromise the
trustworthiness of their work in research proposals,
publications and public communications as well as in all
review activities.
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was developed as part of the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore, as a global guide to the responsible
conduct of research. It is not a regulatory document and does not represent the official policies of the countries and organizations that funded and/or participated in the Conference. For
official policies, guidance, and regulations relating to research integrity, appropriate national bodies and organizations should be consulted. Available at: www.singaporestatement.org
Figure 2:
3
10. Public Communication: Researchers should limit
professional comments to their recognized expertise
when engaged in public discussions about the
application and importance of research findings and
clearly distinguish professional comments from opinions
based on personal views.
11. Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices:
Researchers should report to the appropriate authorities
any suspected research misconduct, including
fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, and other
irresponsible research practices that undermine the
trustworthiness of research, such as carelessness,
improperly listing authors, failing to report conflicting
data, or the use of misleading analytical methods.
12. Responding to Irresponsible Research Practices:
Research institutions, as well as journals, professional
organizations and agencies that have commitments to
research, should have procedures for responding to
allegations of misconduct and other irresponsible
research practices and for protecting those who report
such behavior in good faith. When misconduct or other
irresponsible research practice is confirmed, appropriate
actions should be taken promptly, including correcting
the research record.
13. Research Environments: Research institutions should
create and sustain environments that encourage integrity
through education, clear policies, and reasonable
standards for advancement, while fostering work
environments that support research integrity.
14. Societal Considerations: Researchers and research
institutions should recognize that they have an ethical
obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks
inherent in their work.
 week ending week ending week ending
PRL 106, 161801 (2011) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 22 APRIL 2011 PRL 106, 161801 (2011) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 22 APRIL 2011 PRL 106, 161801 (2011) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 22 APRIL 2011
32
P. Renton,41 M. Rescigno,50a F. Rimondi,6b,6a L. Ristori,45a,16 A. Robson,20 T. Rodrigo,10 T. Rodriguez,44 E. Rogers,23 Institute of Particle Physics: McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8;
Measurement of the Forward-Backward Asymmetry in the B ! Kð"Þ "þ "% Decay S. Rolli,55 R. Roser,16 M. Rossi,53a F. Ruffini,45c,45a A. Ruiz,10 J. Russ,11 V. Rusu,16 A. Safonov,52 W. K. Sakumoto,48 Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6; University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7; and TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A3
and First Observation of the B0s ! $"þ "% Decay L. Santi,53b,53a L. Sartori,45a K. Sato,54 V. Saveliev,43,u A. Savoy-Navarro,43 P. Schlabach,16 A. Schmidt,25 E. E. Schmidt,16 33
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
M. P. Schmidt,59,a M. Schmitt,37 T. Schwarz,8 L. Scodellaro,10 A. Scribano,45c,45a F. Scuri,45a A. Sedov,47 S. Seidel,36 34
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
T. Aaltonen,22 B. Álvarez González,10,w S. Amerio,42a D. Amidei,33 A. Anastassov,37 A. Annovi,18 J. Antos,13 Y. Seiya,40 A. Semenov,14 F. Sforza,45b,45a A. Sfyrla,23 S. Z. Shalhout,8 T. Shears,28 P. F. Shepard,46 M. Shimojima,54,t 35
Institution for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow 117259, Russia
G. Apollinari,16 J. A. Appel,16 A. Apresyan,47 T. Arisawa,56 A. Artikov,14 J. Asaadi,52 W. Ashmanskas,16 B. Auerbach,59 S. Shiraishi,12 M. Shochet,12 I. Shreyber,35 A. Simonenko,14 P. Sinervo,32 A. Sissakian,14,a K. Sliwa,55 J. R. Smith,8
36
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
A. Aurisano,52 F. Azfar,41 W. Badgett,16 A. Barbaro-Galtieri,27 V. E. Barnes,47 B. A. Barnett,24 P. Barria,45c,45a P. Bartos,13 F. D. Snider,16 A. Soha,16 S. Somalwar,51 V. Sorin,4 P. Squillacioti,16 M. Stanitzki,59 R. St. Denis,20 B. Stelzer,32
37
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA
38
M. Bauce,42b,42a G. Bauer,31 F. Bedeschi,45a D. Beecher,29 S. Behari,24 G. Bellettini,45b,45a J. Bellinger,58 D. Benjamin,15 O. Stelzer-Chilton,32 D. Stentz,37 J. Strologas,36 G. L. Strycker,33 Y. Sudo,54 A. Sukhanov,17 I. Suslov,14 K. Takemasa,54
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
39
A. Beretvas,16 A. Bhatti,49 M. Binkley,16,a D. Bisello,42b,42a I. Bizjak,29,cc K. R. Bland,5 C. Blocker,7 B. Blumenfeld,24 Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
Y. Takeuchi,54 J. Tang,12 M. Tecchio,33 P. K. Teng,1 J. Thom,16,h J. Thome,11 G. A. Thompson,23 E. Thomson,44 40
Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan
A. Bocci,15 A. Bodek,48 D. Bortoletto,47 J. Boudreau,46 A. Boveia,12 B. Brau,16,b L. Brigliadori,6b,6a A. Brisuda,13 P. Ttito-Guzmán,30 S. Tkaczyk,16 D. Toback,52 S. Tokar,13 K. Tollefson,34 T. Tomura,54 D. Tonelli,16 S. Torre,18 41
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
C. Bromberg,34 E. Brucken,22 M. Bucciantonio,45b,45a J. Budagov,14 H. S. Budd,48 S. Budd,23 K. Burkett,16 D. Torretta,16 P. Totaro,53b,53a M. Trovato,45d,45a Y. Tu,44 N. Turini,45c,45a F. Ukegawa,54 S. Uozumi,26 A. Varganov,33
42a
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, I-35131 Padova, Italy
G. Busetto,42b,42a P. Bussey,20 A. Buzatu,32 S. Cabrera,15,y C. Calancha,30 S. Camarda,4 M. Campanelli,34 M. Campbell,33 E. Vataga,45d,45a F. Vázquez,17,l G. Velev,16 C. Vellidis,3 M. Vidal,30 I. Vila,10 R. Vilar,10 M. Vogel,36 G. Volpi,45b,45a
42b
University of Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
43
F. Canelli,12,16 A. Canepa,44 B. Carls,23 D. Carlsmith,58 R. Carosi,45a S. Carrillo,17,l S. Carron,16 B. Casal,10 M. Casarsa,16 P. Wagner,44 R. L. Wagner,16 T. Wakisaka,40 R. Wallny,9 S. M. Wang,1 A. Warburton,32 D. Waters,29 M. Weinberger,52
LPNHE, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie/IN2P3-CNRS, UMR7585, Paris, F-75252 France
44
A. Castro,6b,6a P. Catastini,16 D. Cauz,53a V. Cavaliere,45c,45a M. Cavalli-Sforza,4 A. Cerri,27,g L. Cerrito,29,r Y. C. Chen,1 W. C. Wester III,16 B. Whitehouse,55 D. Whiteson,44,d A. B. Wicklund,2 E. Wicklund,16 S. Wilbur,12 F. Wick,25
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
45a
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
M. Chertok,8 G. Chiarelli,45a G. Chlachidze,16 F. Chlebana,16 K. Cho,26 D. Chokheli,14 J. P. Chou,21 W. H. Chung,58 H. H. Williams,44 J. S. Wilson,38 P. Wilson,16 B. L. Winer,38 P. Wittich,16,h S. Wolbers,16 H. Wolfe,38 T. Wright,33 X. Wu,19 45b
University of Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
Y. S. Chung,48 C. I. Ciobanu,43 M. A. Ciocci,45c,45a A. Clark,19 D. Clark,7 G. Compostella,42b,42a M. E. Convery,16 Z. Wu,5 K. Yamamoto,40 J. Yamaoka,15 T. Yang,16 U. K. Yang,12,q Y. C. Yang,26 W.-M. Yao,27 G. P. Yeh,16 K. Yi,16,n
45c
University of Siena, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
J. Conway,8 M. Corbo,43 M. Cordelli,18 C. A. Cox,8 D. J. Cox,8 F. Crescioli,45b,45a C. Cuenca Almenar,59 J. Cuevas,10,w J. Yoh,16 K. Yorita,56 T. Yoshida,40,k G. B. Yu,15 I. Yu,26 S. S. Yu,16 J. C. Yun,16 A. Zanetti,53a Y. Zeng,15 and
45d
Scuola Normale Superiore, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
R. Culbertson,16 D. Dagenhart,16 N. d’Ascenzo,43,u M. Datta,16 P. de Barbaro,48 S. De Cecco,50a G. De Lorenzo,4 46
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
S. Zucchelli6b,6a 47
M. Dell’Orso,45b,45a C. Deluca,4 L. Demortier,49 J. Deng,15,d M. Deninno,6a F. Devoto,22 M. d’Errico,42b,42a 48
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA
A. Di Canto,45b,45a B. Di Ruzza,45a J. R. Dittmann,5 M. D’Onofrio,28 S. Donati,45b,45a P. Dong,16 T. Dorigo,42a K. Ebina,56 University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
(CDF Collaboration) 49
The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10065, USA
A. Elagin,52 A. Eppig,33 R. Erbacher,8 D. Errede,23 S. Errede,23 N. Ershaidat,43,b R. Eusebi,52 H. C. Fang,27 S. Farrington,41 50a
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma 1, I-00185 Roma, Italy
M. Feindt,25 J. P. Fernandez,30 C. Ferrazza,45d,45a R. Field,17 G. Flanagan,47,s R. Forrest,8 M. J. Frank,5 M. Franklin,21 1
Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China 50b
Sapienza Università di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
J. C. Freeman,16 I. Furic,17 M. Gallinaro,49 J. Galyardt,11 J. E. Garcia,19 A. F. Garfinkel,47 P. Garosi,45c,45a H. Gerberich,23 2
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA 51
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA
52
E. Gerchtein,16 S. Giagu,50b,50a V. Giakoumopoulou,3 P. Giannetti,45a K. Gibson,46 C. M. Ginsburg,16 N. Giokaris,3 3
University of Athens, 157 71 Athens, Greece Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
4 53a
P. Giromini,18 M. Giunta,45a G. Giurgiu,24 V. Glagolev,14 D. Glenzinski,16 M. Gold,36 D. Goldin,52 N. Goldschmidt,17 Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
5
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Trieste/Udine, I-34100 Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy
53b
Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798, USA University of Trieste/Udine, I-33100 Udine, Italy
A. Golossanov,16 G. Gomez,10 G. Gomez-Ceballos,31 M. Goncharov,31 O. González,30 I. Gorelov,36 A. T. Goshaw,15 6a 54
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
K. Goulianos,49 A. Gresele,42a S. Grinstein,4 C. Grosso-Pilcher,12 R. C. Group,16 J. Guimaraes da Costa,21 6b
University of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy 55
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
Z. Gunay-Unalan,34 C. Haber,27 S. R. Hahn,16 E. Halkiadakis,51 A. Hamaguchi,40 J. Y. Han,48 F. Happacher,18 K. Hara,54 7
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254, USA 56
Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan
D. Hare,51 M. Hare,55 R. F. Harr,57 K. Hatakeyama,5 C. Hays,41 M. Heck,25 J. Heinrich,44 M. Herndon,58 S. Hewamanage,5 8
University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA 57
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
9 58
D. Hidas,51 A. Hocker,16 W. Hopkins,16,h D. Horn,25 S. Hou,1 R. E. Hughes,38 M. Hurwitz,12 U. Husemann,59 N. Hussain,32 10
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
59
M. Hussein,34 J. Huston,34 G. Introzzi,45a M. Iori,50b,50a A. Ivanov,8,p E. James,16 D. Jang,11 B. Jayatilaka,15 E. J. Jeon,26 Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA
11 (Received 6 January 2011; published 18 April 2011)
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
M. K. Jha,6a S. Jindariani,16 W. Johnson,8 M. Jones,47 K. K. Joo,26 S. Y. Jun,11 T. R. Junk,16 T. Kamon,52 P. E. Karchin,57 12
Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA We reconstruct the rare decays Bþ ! K þ "þ "" , B0 ! K # ð892Þ0 "þ "" , and B0s ! $ð1020Þ"þ "" in a
Y. Kato,40,o W. Ketchum,12 J. Keung,44 V. Khotilovich,52 B. Kilminster,16 D. H. Kim,26 H. S. Kim,26 H. W. Kim,26 13
Comenius University, 842 48 Bratislava, Slovakia; Institute of Experimental Physics, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia pffiffi
J. E. Kim,26 M. J. Kim,18 S. B. Kim,26 S. H. Kim,54 Y. K. Kim,12 N. Kimura,56 S. Klimenko,17 K. Kondo,56 D. J. Kong,26 14 data sample corresponding to 4:4 fb"1 collected in pp( collisions at s ¼ 1:96 TeV by the CDF II detector
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia
at the Tevatron Collider. Using 121 ( 16 Bþ ! K þ "þ "" and 101 ( 12 B0 ! K #0 "þ "" decays we
J. Konigsberg,17 A. Korytov,17 A. V. Kotwal,15 M. Kreps,25 J. Kroll,44 D. Krop,12 N. Krumnack,5,m M. Kruse,15 15
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
16 report the branching ratios. In addition, we report the differential branching ratio and the muon forward-
V. Krutelyov,52,e T. Kuhr,25 M. Kurata,54 S. Kwang,12 A. T. Laasanen,47 S. Lami,45a S. Lammel,16 M. Lancaster,29 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
17
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA backward asymmetry in the Bþ and B0 decay modes, and the K #0 longitudinal polarization fraction in the B0
R. L. Lander,8 K. Lannon,38,v A. Lath,51 G. Latino,45c,45a I. Lazzizzera,42a T. LeCompte,2 E. Lee,52 H. S. Lee,12 J. S. Lee,26 18 decay mode with respect to the squared dimuon mass. These are consistent with the predictions, and most
Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
S. W. Lee,52,x S. Leo,45b,45a S. Leone,45a J. D. Lewis,16 C.-J. Lin,27 J. Linacre,41 M. Lindgren,16 E. Lipeles,44 A. Lister,19 19
University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland recent determinations from other experiments and of comparable accuracy. We also report the first
D. O. Litvintsev,16 C. Liu,46 Q. Liu,47 T. Liu,16 S. Lockwitz,59 N. S. Lockyer,44 A. Loginov,59 D. Lucchesi,42b,42a 20
Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom observation of the B0s ! $"þ "" decay and measure its branching ratio BRðB0s ! $"þ "" Þ ¼ ½1:44 (
J. Lueck,25 P. Lujan,27 P. Lukens,16 G. Lungu,49 J. Lys,27 R. Lysak,13 R. Madrak,16 K. Maeshima,16 K. Makhoul,31 21
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 0:33 ( 0:46* + 10"6 using 27 ( 6 signal events. This is currently the most rare B0s decay observed.
22
P. Maksimovic,24 S. Malik,49 G. Manca,28,c A. Manousakis-Katsikakis,3 F. Margaroli,47 C. Marino,25 M. Martı́nez,4 Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki
R. Martı́nez-Balları́n,30 P. Mastrandrea,50a M. Mathis,24 M. E. Mattson,57 P. Mazzanti,6a K. S. McFarland,48 P. McIntyre,52 and Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.161801 PACS numbers: 13.20.He
23
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
R. McNulty,28,j A. Mehta,28 P. Mehtala,22 A. Menzione,45a C. Mesropian,49 T. Miao,16 D. Mietlicki,33 A. Mitra,1 24
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
H. Miyake,54 S. Moed,21 N. Moggi,6a M. N. Mondragon,16,l C. S. Moon,26 R. Moore,16 M. J. Morello,16 J. Morlock,25 25
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany The flavor-changing neutral current process b ! s‘‘ of short distance operators and effective Wilson coefficients
P. Movilla Fernandez,16 A. Mukherjee,16 Th. Muller,25 P. Murat,16 M. Mussini,6b,6a J. Nachtman,16,n Y. Nagai,54 26
Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Korea; Seoul National University, occurs in the standard model (SM) through higher order C7;9;10 . Some new physics models [1] allow the flipped sign
J. Naganoma,56 I. Nakano,39 A. Napier,55 J. Nett,58 C. Neu,44,aa M. S. Neubauer,23 J. Nielsen,27,f L. Nodulman,2 Seoul 151-742, Korea; Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea; Korea Institute of Science diagrams where new physics contributions could arise. of C7 . This results in the opposite sign of AFB in the small q2
O. Norniella,23 E. Nurse,29 L. Oakes,41 S. H. Oh,15 Y. D. Oh,26 I. Oksuzian,17 T. Okusawa,40 R. Orava,22 L. Ortolan,4 and Technology Information, Daejeon 305-806, Korea; Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, Korea;
Accurate SM predictions make the b ! s‘‘ phenomenol- region (q2 , M‘‘ 2 2
c ). Recently, BABAR and Belle [4] mea-
S. Pagan Griso,42b,42a C. Pagliarone,53a E. Palencia,10,g V. Papadimitriou,16 A. A. Paramonov,2 J. Patrick,16 Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 561-756, Korea
27
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA ogy suited to uncover early indications of new physics sured an AFB in the B0 ! K#0 ‘þ ‘" decay larger than the
G. Pauletta,53b,53a M. Paulini,11 C. Paus,31 D. E. Pellett,8 A. Penzo,53a T. J. Phillips,15 G. Piacentino,45a E. Pianori,44 28
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom [1–3], especially through observables like the lepton SM expectation. The decay B0s ! $ð1020Þ"þ "" has not
J. Pilot,38 K. Pitts,23 C. Plager,9 L. Pondrom,58 K. Potamianos,47 O. Poukhov,14,a F. Prokoshin,14,z A. Pronko,16 29
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom forward-backward asymmetry (AFB ) and the differential been seen in previous searches by CDF [5] and D0 [6].
F. Ptohos,18,i E. Pueschel,11 G. Punzi,45b,45a J. Pursley,58 A. Rahaman,46 V. Ramakrishnan,58 N. Ranjan,47 I. Redondo,30 30
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain branching fraction (BR) as a function of dilepton mass In this Letter we report an update of our previous
31
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA M‘‘ . The b ! s‘‘ amplitudes can be described in terms analysis [5] of the rare decay modes Bþ ! K þ "þ "" ,

0031-9007=11=106(16)=161801(7) 161801-1  2011 American Physical Society 161801-2 161801-3

Figure 3: From Physical Review Letters, 22. April 2011

scientist. UVVU quotes five years as a minimum time for data storage, following the Danish Data Protection Agency.
This figure may well be increased within the near future.
I have kept my records from almost fifty years of scientific activity until a few weeks ago, when I had to abandon most
of it in connection with a relocation of my department. Apart from reprints, the only item that I repeatedly picked out
over the years was original figures for reproduction in reviews and books.

2.2 Publication
As a scientist you have to publish your findings. Although the opinion seems to be widely spread that it is more important
that, where and how much you publish than what you publish, don’t forget that the primary purpose of a publication is to
be read. Admittedly, the quality of published papers is not the only criterion when it comes to allocate funds and jobs, but
in our part of the world it is important and often the first criterion.
Characteristics of a good paper are

I) Reporting sound, original and interesting research,

II) Necessary documentation and clear presentation,
III) Fair credit to previous work and
IV) Proper credit to those who have contributed, either in the title page or in an acknowledgement.

While I) depends entirely on your field, there is a lot of literature on II), of which I like to mention ref. [5] from which I
have learned a lot, despite almost 50 years of experience.

2.2.1 Authorship
Items III) and IV) deserve attention if you want to avoid trouble. Consider IV) first. If all of a paper is your work, both
the idea, the method of attack, the very research, the documentation and the writeup, the only problem that may arise
is that your supervisor may claim coauthorship. If you have discussed the work with him/her regularly, the claim may
be acceptable, and following it may increase your chance for the paper to be read. Otherwise he/she should not be a
coauthor. In case of disagreement, try to discuss what is going to happen if the supervisor should report about your work
at an international conference and someone in the audience asks a critical question.
Most frequent in the natural sciences are multiple-author papers. Figure 3 shows an example that is representative
for high-energy physics. Except for specialists in the field it is hard to impossible to find out who are the key people in
this enterprise. Clearly, everybody who had a serious involvement in the project has been listed in the titlepage at the
proper alphabetic position. Projects like this have a spokesman who has the right to make the ultimate decisions, but
intricate procedures are underlying the publication process to ensure the quality of what comes out of such extremely
costly research.

4
 You are more likely to be involved in a project involving a small number of people, students, postdocs, technicians
and one or more senior researchers. The American Physical Society has formulated the following rights and obligations
for coauthors [6],
• All collaborators share some degree of responsibility for any paper they coauthor. Some coauthors have responsi-
bility for the entire paper as an accurate, verifiable, report of the research. These include, for example, coauthors
who are accountable for the integrity of the critical data reported in the paper, carry out the analysis, write the
manuscript, present major findings at conferences, or provide scientific leadership for junior colleagues.
• Coauthors who make specific, limited, contributions to a paper are responsible for them, but may have only limited
responsibility for other results. While not all coauthors may be familiar with all aspects of the research presented in
their paper, all collaborations should have in place an appropriate process for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy
and validity of the reported results, and all coauthors should be aware of this process.
• Every coauthor should have the opportunity to review the manuscript before its submission. All coauthors have an
obligation to provide prompt retractions or correction of errors in published works. Any individual unwilling or
unable to accept appropriate responsibility for a paper should not be a coauthor.
Criteria like the above should be helpful to decide who is going to be a coauthor and who should figure in the acknowl-
edgement. Once that has been settled, the next question is the order of appearance in the by-line. It is a widely spread
assumption that the first author is the one who has done all the work and the last author is the boss. As you may have
noted in the above paper from Physical Review Letters, this is not a universal rule. In fact, there are lots of combinations
of hierarchic and alphabetic order in addition to curiosities like a well-known researcher, whose last name starts with a
‘Z’ and who loves inverse-alphabetic order in the by-line. Or the professor who only accepts students placed behind him
in the alphabet.
It may happen that someone publishes a paper about work in which you participated without putting your name into
the title. This is legitimate if the matter has been discussed with you and if you agreed. If not, the action may be scientific
misconduct.
More frequent is the situation where someone submits a manuscript with your name in the by-line without telling you.
Keep away from those people. If the paper contains suspicious results and conclusions that you cannot support, write
to the editor and ask for your name to be withdrawn. If you have not been involved in the work, you actually have to
withdraw your name from the publication, once you have become aware of the matter, otherwise you may be criticized
for ‘gift authorship’.

2.2.2 Quotations
Item III) above concerns quotation. The American Physical Society states the following [6]:
• Authors have an obligation to their colleagues and the physics community to include a set of references that com-
municates the precedents, sources, and context of the reported work. Proper referencing gives credit to those whose
research has informed or led to the work in question, helps to avoid duplication of effort, and increases the value of
a paper by guiding the reader to related materials. It is the responsibility of authors to have surveyed prior work in
the area and to include relevant references.
• Proper and complete referencing is an essential part of any physics research publication. Deliberate omission of a
pertinent author or reference is unethical and unacceptable.
In practice this implies that if you take over from the literature
• An important finding, idea or argument,
• A mathematical derivation,
• A computer program,
• A photo, a diagram and the like, or
• Verbatim text,
you have to clearly identify the source. The way you quote it is a matter of style of the journal.
The above formulation is ambiguous with regard to whether the bibliography of your paper should be complete in
some sense. There are many ways to identify research that ‘has informed or led to the work in question’. If you are
writing a genuine review, you are supposed to aim at completeness. For a typical research paper, you may prefer a rather
narrow interpretation, if not for other reasons than space limitations, especially if you work in a field with hundreds or
thousands of references.
When having to make a choice I try to identify

5
 • The first paper,
• The best paper, and
• The most recent review.

A complete match is a rare occasion, but this set of criteria is far superior to alternatives that you find much too often in
the literature such as a few randomly-picked recent references (‘see, e.g., . . . ’) or, even more amateurish, a bunch of more
or less irrelevant self-citations.
Special attention is indicated in quoting verbatim text (if you want to avoid being charged of plagiarism) and borrowing
figures (if you want to avoid a copyright case).
As to verbatim text, be aware that powerful tools are available to detect overlaps, and that anybody can verify the
degree of overlap. You can use formulations from the bible or from Newton and Darwin without an explicit quotation, but
if you take over a paragraph in your introduction or conclusion from somewhere else, ensure an explicit quote. I myself
try to set one line of text as a hard limit, and even less in case of particularly striking formulations.
The temptation to copy someone else’s formulations may be particularly strong if you find your command of English
language to be inferior to that of the other author. Try to resist straight copying. After all, your motivation only rarely
will be exactly the same as that of the other author. If you are aware of linguistic weaknesses, try to overcome them or
consult someone in your surroundings for linguistic help before submitting the manuscript. This will also aid the job of
refereeing.

2.2.3 Permissions
When borrowing figures you need to ask for permission. You have to ask the copyright holder, which is most often the
publisher of the book or journal. This process has been automated recently: If your source is an electronic journal, locate
the article on the internet and click on ‘permissions’. This will most often lead to a printed permission within a minute
and free of charge. If that does not work, you (or your publisher) will have to approach the publisher. It may take time to
get a response, and it also happens that the publisher sets a charge.
The publisher may also set the condition that you obtain permission from the author. Whether or not that is the case,
you should anyhow contact the author. No sensible author will deny permission, but he/she may offer you a better copy
than what you can extract from a pdf file on the internet or make you aware of an error in the original work. Never quote
a figure from someone else’s work without specifying the source. And be aware of the possibility that the source from
which you copy a figure may not be the original source.
What do you do if you are writing a book and want to borrow 50 figures? Well, the safest solution is to ask for 50
permissions. The only alternative is to produce your own figures. With regard to diagrams this means you construct your
own ones from scratch, and with regard to photographs you need to involve your own camera, if that is possible.
This whole complex of permissions used to be mainly a matter of priority within the scientific community, but the
copyright issue is getting increased attention. I have not yet heard of a case in court involving an author charged of
borrowing a single figure without quoting, but I am not sure about the situation a few years from now.

2.2.4 Errata and Corrigenda

Nobody is perfect. Even Nobel laureates make errors. It is part of good scientific practice that you publish a corrigendum
if you trace an error in one of your papers. This is not the least a matter of preserving your credibility in the scientific
community: If you publicly correct an error, your peers will imply that the rest of your production is error-free as far as
you are aware.
Correcting an error is also a matter of your own comfort: After all, an error in your paper may have serious conse-
quences. You may feel guilty if you have not corrected it in due time.
If you write an erratum or corrigendum1 to a highly-cited paper, you may even increase your citation count and your
H-index. This may – whether you like it or not – affect the decision-making on your next application for a job or for
research funds.

2.3 Refereeing
In our current system, publication in refereed journals is a key ingredient of a scientific career. Therefore, your way of
addressing referee reports and your behavior as a referee are part of the scientific code of conduct.
1 A corrigendum corrects errors in the manuscript, an erratum corrects errors induced by the publisher. In the natural sciences one rarely makes this

distinction.

6
 You will not be charged for scientific misconduct, if you try to cheat a referee or if you, as a referee, treat an author
unfairly. However, your reputation as a scientist is influenced by your behavior both as an author and as a referee. The
formal anonymity of the process does not prevent people from talking about their experiences with you, but of course you
will not necessarily get to know what they say.
The problem is that strong emotions may be involved. This is most pronounced when a paper is recommended for
rejection by a referee.

2.3.1 Author
Consider first the case where you are the author whose paper has been returned with such a verdict. There is one thing
that you should never do: Sending the manuscript right away to another journal without any further correspondence with
the rejecting editor. If not for other reasons, the new editor may send your manuscript to the same referee. If that referee
notices that you have totally disregarded his points he has good reasons for putting you on his personal black list.
Here is my recommendation:

1. Send the report to your coauthors.

2. Cool down for at least 24 hours.
3. Itemize the points made by the referee and decide which ones are valid.
4. If there is an acceptable balance between valid and invalid points, make appropriate changes in the manuscript. This
may take time.
5. Clarify those points where you do not agree with the referee.
6. If you and your coauthors find the resulting manuscript worthwhile, send it to the editor with a cool and polite
rebuttal.

In the rebuttal, address the editor, not the referee. It is the editor who conducts the correspondence. The editor may
override a referee report on the basis of the report and your rebuttal. It is the editor who decides whether your manuscript
should go to another referee or whether a final decision can be made already.
Referees are typical readers, not gurus. If a referee has misunderstood you, it could be his fault, but as a first approxi-
mation it is reasonable to assume that it is your fault.
However, there are stupid referees, and there are referees who have a bias. Try to give a chance to the editor to find
out, but if he does not, and the referee insists after the second round, it is completely legitimate to ask for another referee
or to submit the manuscript to another journal. I have encountered the latter situation on a couple of occasions. Rather
than speculating about the identity of the respective reviewers I attached the entire correspondence with the first editor
to inform the second editor, and I also informed the first editor briefly about my point of view, asking my message to be
transferred to the first reviewer.

2.3.2 Referee
With an increased pressure on scientists to publish, the number of submissions and hence the number of referee reports
needed increases steadily. At the same time, scientists feel they have less time for refereeing. Therefore, journal editors
are constantly in search of new referees. You are likely to receive your first refereeing job as soon as you have published
your first paper. When it happens, try to find out whether you are qualified. Do you know a reasonable fraction of the
literature quoted in the manuscript?
Once you have decided to accept the job, take it seriously: Pointing just at 2-3 misspellings and nothing else is
unsatisfactory for an author. On the other hand, don’t be afraid of recommending a manuscript for rejection if it does not
present something new.

3 Misconduct
The recent literature on misconduct in science, usually denoted as ‘fraud’ (bedrageri), is extensive. Much of this has been
written by journalists. You may find a list of pertinent books etc. in ref. [7]. This author is a prominent scientist himself
and he focuses on a small number of cases that have received great publicity. As indicated in the title, he goes beneath the
headlines and arrives at much more balanced and sometimes surprising conclusions.
Dramatic cases of fraud are still rare events, although there must be some that have never been discovered. Minor
cases are unquestionably more frequent, but in order to become harmful, the respective papers need to be read. Since
many papers are never read, the damage must be limited.

7
 Reading through the literature you will soon notice that cases of proven misconduct only rarely start with the intention
of fraud. Rather, people get carried away or are under some kind of pressure, including trivial reasons such as lack of
time.
In my experience, actual charges of misconduct mostly concern four categories,

1. Fabricated or fictive data,

2. Plagiarism,
3. Manipulating statistics,
4. Questionable scientific basis for drawn conclusions.

Most cases of the last category 4) cannot be treated by UVVU for legal reasons: It is not the job of UVVU to be an arbiter
in scientific discussions.

3.1 Multiple Publication

If the Danish prime minister has an important message to the people, he may choose to publish it in all leading newspapers
of the country. If you have hit an important result in your research, and you decide to publish it in more than one journal,
you better be careful about what you are doing.
There have been situations when this was legitimate. Prominent examples are two papers by Niels Bohr that, during
wartime, were published both by Nature and Physical Review. Other examples occurred during the time of the iron curtain
with papers smuggled across the border. And there are of course numerous cases of entire journals being translated into
other languages.
As a general rule, however, in submitting a paper you imply that your manuscript has not been published nor is under
consideration somewhere else. Despite that it happens regularly that one and the same paper is published in two or more
journals.
Sometimes only the title and the author have changed. Of course you will never consider this primitive type of
plagiarism, but you may well become the one whose work is stolen in this way. The proper response is to inform the chief
editors of the journals involved. If you just address the publisher or the editorial office, you run the risk that the person
(or the computer) who reads your message does not realize that this is a serious matter.
More frequent is the case where only the title has changed, while the author’s name is the same. This is not currently
listed as scientific misconduct, although it is in most cases a violation of copyright. Moreover, it is by no means good
scientific practice.
Apart from being dishonest, this sort of action is not very clever. After all, the chance that the second submitted
manuscript goes to the referee who recommended the first one for publication is substantial. At any rate, the consequences
of such an action are drastic: Apart from a copyright charge they include forced retraction, blacklisting with the journals
involved and information of the employer by the journal editors.
Milder forms of multiple publication occur all the time. People want to go to conferences, and in order to receive
travel money they have to present a paper. Why not divide up an almost finished paper into two, with different titles, a
slightly modified introduction, rearranged list of references and a graph showing wifnium replaced by a graph showing
wafnium2. This does not violate copyright and is nowhere listed as scientific misconduct. If you do it once it may not
even be harmful to your scientific reputation. But don’t do it all the time. If not for other reasons: One paper with Z
citations gives you more prestige than n papers with Z/n citations.

3.2 Suspicions
Unfortunately, scientific misconduct happens, and if it happens within your scientific environment it is bound to have
serious consequences on your day-by-day activity. First there is a period from the day when suspicion arises until the
time when a charge has been submitted officially to the appropriate body, which in the first instance typically will be the
department head.
There are some indicators that call for attention:

• A large number of publications in high-profile journals can, of course, be a sign of great creativity, but it can also
be a sign of wishful thinking or fictitious results,
• Somebody may report measurements with a hitherto unseen precision, using standard apparatus,
• There is missing essential information in publications.
2 Quote from Samuel Goudsmit, founding editor of Physical Review Letters

8
 Maybe you are able to repeat suspicious measurements with the same apparatus or a similar one. This should give you
a clue on whether your suspicion is justified, but it may be not that simple.
Evidently you will not accuse a colleague or superior of scientific misconduct unless you have serious reasons. Once
you have convinced yourself that something is wrong, try to discuss the matter with someone whom you trust before going
the official way. After all, experience shows that those who receive the message will not necessarily listen to you.
UVVU is a slowly working organization. There may be a long period where the whistle-blower and the one who is
charged come to work every day door-to-door. It requires some strength to cope with that kind of tension.

4 Concluding Remarks
You cannot guard yourself 100 % against being passively involved in scientific misconduct, but you can do your best to
avoid it by carefully choosing your research group. Of course, the scientific topic is an important point of consideration,
but the general atmosphere in the group has a long-lasting effect on your career. Talk to alumni and previous members of
the group, look at the output in terms of theses and publications, how is the international interface, listen to lectures given
by senior group members and try to make a judgement on the personalities involved. You can get much more specific
advice from ‘On being a Scientist’, quoted in figure 1, and a fairly unique book with an amazingly broad scope [8].

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Peter Højrup, leader of the PhD school at the Faculty of Science, SDU for providing the contact
to Philos, to the Philos steering group for efficient organization and to a very attentive audience including the Dean of
Science for a stimulating discussion, part of which I have tried to incorporate into this manuscript. Valuable comments on
the manuscript have been received from H. H. Andersen and I. Vickridge, editors of Nuclear Instruments and Methods B
and from Charlotte Elverdam, general counsel to UVVU.

References
[1] VTU. Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. Ministeriet for Videnskab,
Teknologi og Udvikling; 2005. Available from: http://en.fi.dk/acts/executive-order-no.
-668-of-28-june-2005-on-the-danish-commit/.

[2] SDU. God Videnskabelig Praksis. University of Southern Denmark; 2002. Available from:
http://sdunet.dk/Vaerktoejer/Regelsamling/~/media/Intranet/Public/Upload/
Vaerktoejer/Love_regler_aftaler/God%20videnskabelig%20praksis.pdf.ashx.

[3] UVVU. Vejledninger i God Videnskabelig Praksis med særlig fokus på sundhedsvidenskab, naturvidenskab
og teknisk videnskab. VTU; 2009. Available from: http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2009/
vejledninger-i-god-videnskabelig-udvalgene-vedroerende-videnskabelig/UVVU%
20Vejledninger%20GVP%202009.pdf.

[4] UVVU. Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice with special focus on health science, natural sci-
ence, technical science. VTU; 2009. Available from: http://en.fi.dk/publications/2009/
the-danish-committees-on-scientific-guidelines-for-good-scientific-practice/
UVVU%20GVP%20ENG%2015052009.pdf.

[5] Lebrun JL. Scientific Writing: A reader and writer’s guide. World Scientific; 2007.

[6] APS. APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct. American Physical Society; 2002. Available from: http://www.
aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm.

[7] Goodstein D. On Fact and Fraud; Cautionary tales from the front lines of science. Princeton University Press; 2010.

[8] Rosei F, Johnston T. Survival skills for scientists. Imperial College Press; 2006.

9
View publication stats