Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T02:00:37.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Resolving Ethical Lapses in the Non-Publication of Dissertations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Michael C. Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Sarah E. Beals-Erickson
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Spencer C. Evans
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Cathleen Odar
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Kimberly S. Canter
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Susan T. Fiske
Affiliation:
Princeton University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

If a doctoral dissertation is an original scholarly contribution to knowledge, then it seems important that the information gained be disseminated through means of publication, where its contribution can benefit society. In our view, for a dissertation to have an impact, submitting to ProQuest UMI, for example, does not suffice as publication, even though called “publishing” by the company. Even though this is the primary archive for dissertations and theses including an estimated “95% to 98% of all U.S. doctoral dissertations” (Proquest, 2013), limited access to these archives and their lack of use by many professionals may limit the visibility and ultimate utility of those projects only published in this forum.

Unfortunately, we have observed a number of students who have “walked away” from their dissertations (or masters’ theses) after being awarded their degrees (and not just in our own graduate program). These students, for a variety of reasons, do not pursue publication of these projects. These decisions not to seek publication are rarely due to poorly conceived or inadequately conducted research. In fact, some dissertation research may be of higher quality than published research is (McLeod & Weisz, 2004). Nor have these projects resulted in uninterpretable, nonsignificant, or unoriginal findings, which therefore might not constitute uniquely valuable contributions to the scholarly literature. Indeed, in many cases, the “quality assurance” mechanisms of mentorship, committee review, and oral and written defenses are often sufficient to obviate such undesirable outcomes (McLeod & Weisz, 2004). Non-publication apparently results from a lack of further interest or incentive to publish and a desire to move on to other career activities.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Case Studies and Commentaries
, pp. 59 - 62
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dowd, M. D. (2004). Breaching the contract: The ethics of nonpublication of research studies. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 1014–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, R., & Loder, E. (2012). Editorial: Missing clinical trial data. British Medical Journal, 344, d8158. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, B. D., & Weisz, J. R. (2004). Using dissertations to examine potential bias in child and adolescent clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pautasso, M. (2010). Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics, 85, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portalupi, S., von Elm, E., Schmucker, C., Lang, B., Motschall, E., Schwarzer, G. et al. (2013). Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics. BioMed Central, 2, 2. doi:10.1186/2046–4053–2–2Google ScholarPubMed
ProQuest. (2013). Dissertation Abstracts International. Retrieved from
Yamey, G. (1999). Scientists who do not publish trial results are “unethical.” British Medical Journal, 319, 939. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×