Business Ethics & Social Responsibility

Role Play -2 BUSE619

Second semester - 2021

General
Q1- How do the grad adviser’s preconceived notions about the student’s ability or lack
thereof affect the situation? What can be done about this kind of preconception and how
it affects interactions?

Due to the academic probation and the reported informal complain against some of the faculty
members, the student is in a critical situation. Besides, the lack of student’s intellectual rights
had led to a complication of the situation and may affect his future career. On the other hand,
the professor decided to use the student’s previous background while ignoring the need to
deal with the situation professionally and ethically. The professor should’ve explained to the
student how they will work together and explain authorship rights. In this case, the grad
adviser must drive the matter from an ethical point of view and avoid bias to any party. The
grad adviser should validate and verify the student’s and professor’s standpoints. To
summarize, the grad adviser should evaluate the situation neutrally without referring to the
student background or history.

Q2- What must someone do to be a co-author of a research article? The amount of effort
alone does not determine whether someone should be listed as a co-author of an article.

Based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), there are four
recommendations for authorship criteria:
1. Essential contribution to the concept of work design, analysis, and interpretation of
data for the work.
2. Drafting or revising the work for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the work to be published. 
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspect of work and ensuring all related question to
the accuracy or integrity in any part of the work is investigated and resolved. [1]
All individuals who contributed in conducting the work should ideally follow the above
criteria. Therefore, authors are required to provide a form that defines each author's roles,
responsibilities, and goals. This form of agreement aims to provide information about the
ownership and meet the expectation of the publication.

General
Q3- What should the adviser do next; what are the adviser’s responsibilities, if any?

In the beginning, professor Plottner needs to justify to the grad adviser and other concerned
authorities the reason for removing the student’s name as a co- author on the chapter he wrote
in the book. Also, professor Plottner needs to support his reasons with evidence to justify his
point of view. Being an advisor has many roles and responsibilities; being a mentor is an
important role. This role requires him to help students overcome difficulties and achieve their
desired goals by following academic standards. A professional advisor also supports and
guides students during the publication process.

Q4- What’s likely to happen if the adviser takes those steps?

If the advisor follows the policies of ICMJE and sticks to his essential roles and
responsibilities, this will lead to a reduction and limitation of unethical cases related to
intellectual property. Also, the student will be encouraged by his advisor to write and publish
more which will guide him through his publication process.

5. Should the student proceed with a complaint or just let this drop? What is likely in
either scenario?

The student must file a formal complaint against Prof. Plottner. If a formal report is filed, an
inquiry into "Professor Plottner's" intellectual ethics will be conducted, and the appropriate
steps will be taken based on the findings of the investigation. On the other hand, if the student
does not file an official complaint, the case will be closed without a resolution 

Q6- Is this something that the grad studies adviser can let drop? Is proceeding entirely
up to the student?

Of course not, since the grad studies adviser’s job entails maintaining intellectual honesty and
making professional decisions aligned with his beliefs and ideals. The grad studies adviser
should bear in mind that the professor should have explained the student's responsibilities,
copyright, and academic contribution from the beginning. The grad student adviser should
also consider the fact that the professor is expected to justify the writing errors to the student
and point him in the right direction in terms of research methodology. Also, he should
illustrate the most critical point (that he did not take advantage of the student's initiative in the

General
published paper). The grad adviser should tell the student that he will support him if he
decides to take the investigation further.

Observation:
The student is trying to convey Professor Plottner’s attitude towards students. According to
the student, Professor Plottner is not a professional in dealing with students. He is taking full
credit for his benefit, which is both demotivating, unjust, and unethical on a university
professor’s part. The student did not say his point of view openly. He tried to explain it to the
grad student adviser. The reason for that was the fear that the professor’s position might
negatively influence the student’s side.

The professor attempts to make the student feel at ease and act normally even though he does
not recognize him as a co-author by telling him not to worry about the matter. According to
the professor, it was a learning experience for the student. Professor Plottner believes that the
student should not expect his name to be included as a co-author since the chapter was revised
under his supervision.

The student was able to read the adviser’s signals. This is the reason the student asked for a
meeting with the grad adviser. The student wanted to explain to grad adviser the situation he
is going through. Presenting all drafts with the professor’s remarks and comments for the
initiating and progressing process of the work to the grad studies advisor, reflects the
student’s ability to interpret advisor’s’ signals.’ The student felt from the advisor’s signals
that this is an issue that needs evidence if he wishes to claim his right regarding co-authorship.

The professor did not correctly hear the student. If he did, the student would not have gone to
the grad student advisor for help and advice. The professor briefly answered the student. He
did not provide him with a detailed answerer about the issue. Only telling the student not to
worry about co-authorship and take it as a learning experience reveals the professor’s failure
to respond to the student’s concern’s

Before engaging in the project, the student should have discussed directly with the professor
about his co-authorship hope and expectations. On the other hand, the Professor should’ve
conveyed to the student that the only benefit he would gain from participating in the project is
the learning experience under a highly known professor’s supervision. The professor could
have mentioned that in order to be listed as a co-author, the student would have to take up

General
more drafts to refine his skills. Moreover, the professor could have simply said that there are
no co-authoring names with him for this project and the student’s participation is optional if
he wants to look at it as a training experience. 

The graduate student’s adviser primary responsibility is to find a solution that generates the
least amount of harm to all sides. He should focus on finding the root of the issue, collecting
information about it and establishing acceptable policies and procedures that represent ethical
behavior. In this situation, he must check the student’s knowledge’s authenticity and allow
him to file a complaint to obtain justice. It is the student’s responsibility to file a formal
complaint. After the student submits a complaint, his assertions are checked, and the
professor’s draft is compared to the student’s draft. If the accusations against the professor are
proven, he will receive a warning letter. Whether the student does or does not want to make a
lawsuit, he is referred to another department’s counselor to prevent provoking Prof. Plotter’s
rage and jeopardizing his impartiality. After this incident, the university board should
implement the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) policies to
ensure the intellectual rights of all publishers and specifically define roles and responsibilities
of publishing participants to avoid conflicts.

General
References

1- http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-
role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#:~:text=The%20ICMJE%20recommends%20that
%20authorship,for%20important%20intellectual%20content%3B%20AND

General