This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - Column 164


protect public health, safety, and welfare, and enhance the sustainability of soci- ety.” (https://www.americangeosciences. org/community/agi-guidelines-ethical- professional-conduct).


Unfortunately, the current AAPG Code of Ethics (2013), http://www.aapg. org/about/aapg/overview#2474265- code-of-ethics, has retreated from the strong statement of primacy of public protection over confidentiality. Instead, current AAPG Code of Ethics states, “Members shall not use or divulge any employer’s or client’s confidential infor- mation without their permission and shall avoid conflicts of interest that may arise from information gained during geological investigations.” This state- ment effectively places protection of the public’s health safety and welfare below protection of client or employer confidentiality.


Complying with the quoted rules that state that one should act to change the ethically problematic situation or resign are example of when integrity, sticking by your moral or ethical obligations when doing so may result is adverse personal consequences, comes into sharp focus.3 It’s hard to pay your mortgage and other bills when you’ve lost your job. Those who disclose confidential information are also commonly derided as “whistle blowers” or in grade-school parlance, “tattletales.”


We all learned in the sandbox that being a “tattletale” was bad. The “don’t be a tattletale” rule had the desirable effect of teaching us to settle our differ- ences and problems on our own without resorting to adult or parental authority. Really big or serious problems obvi- ously requiring adult help fell outside the “don’t tattletale” rule. Adult examples of tattletales are termed “whistle blow- ers,” a term with possibly more negative connotations than “tattletale.” Perhaps this is due to the perceived “disloyalty” of whistle blowing.


Henrik Ibsen’s Enemy of the People is a play about whistle blowing and the adverse consequences thereof. Enemy of the People is the story of a doctor in a small town in southern Norway who discovers and then reports that the water supply for the town’s spa, the


town’s major economic driver, is pol- luted. Written in a time before general environmental awareness, the doctor’s revelations result in the economic and social shunning of the doctor and his family. But the consequences of raising unpopular or unwelcome ideas are not limited to the specific facts set out in the play. Despite having been published in 1882, Enemy of the People is a very modern story: get a copy on the web and read it.4


Future columns will address case histories and aspects of the mechanics of blowing the whistle in an ethically responsible manner. Aspects of whistle blowing are also discussed in columns                 


Submitting a paper to two or more publishers at the same time


Earlier this year, AIPG’s Editor, John


Berry, received an article for publica- tion. For various reasons beyond Berry’s control (time, suggested re-writes, etc.), the article was not included in The Professional Geologist. By the time Berry was ready to re-examine the article for inclusion in the TPG, a vir- tually identical article by the same author appeared in another geoscience publication. Although AIPG has not included specific provisions related to publishing in its Code of Ethics, other geoscience organizations that do a lot more publishing the AIPG have such provisions.5 The American Geophysical Union’s 2013 AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics statement in its “Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Scientific Research, Guideline B. Ethical Obligations of Authors/Contributors” Guideline 7 states, “7. Avoid unneces- sary fragmentation or redundant publi- cation of research reports to artificially increase the number of publications.”


The phrase, “to artificially increase the number of publications” highlights one ethical concern related to redundant publication, the artificial increasing of one’s publications list. This is a form of dishonesty. In my own publications


list, I have some articles that have been reprinted in another publication (with permission); these reprints are cited in the same listing as the original publi- cation. Another ethical problem with duplicate publication without acknowl- edgement and permission is the creation of a conflict of interest between the two publications.


The Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) 2011 Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors states under “Relations with reviewers,” states that “Best practice for editors would include: …encouraging review- ers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redun- dant publication and plagiarism.” Under “Ensuring the integrity of the academic record,” states that “Best practice for editors would include: …taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered).” (https://publicationethics. org/resources/code-conduct). COPE also has flowcharts for dealing with ethical issues and the first flowchart’s title is “What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication.” Clearly, COPE considers intentionally redundant pub- lication as unethical. In addition to the dishonest padding of one’s publica- tions list and the conflict of interest between publishers, COPE’s concerns about redundant publication suggest that redundant publication is a form of plagiarism.


Having discovered the duplicate pub- lication, AIPG rejected the article for this reason. John Berry is also working on an AIPG Publication Policy to deal with this and similar issues.


This case also highlights the fact that the AIPG Code of Ethics does not cover all conceivable aspects of professional ethics that a geoscientist might encoun- ter. AIPG’s primary organizational focus is not on publication of geoscientific articles. Nor do I believe that the AIPG Code of Ethics should be greatly expand- ed. Rather, I believe that when such uncommon cases arise, AIPG can look at the ethics codes of related professional societies that do address the relevant situation and use them for guidance, as was done in this case.


 


4. Alan M. Jacobs, CPG, 2002 article, “Collaboration Between Geology and the Arts—Environmental Theater,” in the October ‘02 TPG is also worth reviewing.


5. I want to thank Linda Gunderson, USGS emeritus, for providing me with the AGU and COPE citations.


36 TPG • Oct.Nov.Dec 2017


www.aipg.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56