# Scientific Integrity

When it comes to scientific integrity, everyone knows the obvious:

{% hint style="danger" %}
## **The Obvious:**

* Never create data out of thin air.  **This is data fabrication.**
* Never manipulate, exclude, or expand data to reach a desired result.  **This is data falsification.**
* Never use text or content without citing it appropriately (even your own writing!).  **This is** _(self-)_ **plagiarism.**
{% endhint %}

If at any point you feel that due to the pressure to succeed ANY of the above seem even _remotely_ like a good idea, talk to me right away!

Beyond the obvious, there are lots of other things that go into doing science with integrity and openness.

## The Less Obvious:

### Making mistakes

Science is complicated and people make mistakes. Our policy on mistakes is simple: i**t is OK to make mistakes, but it is not OK to keep mistakes a secret.** If something goes wrong, inform someone immediately so that it can be addressed quickly. The integrity of our science is our top priority and the sooner we know that something went wrong, the sooner we can fix the issue and help to make sure it doesn't go wrong again in the future.

### Reproducible Research

If you give someone your raw data and your methods, they should be able to reproduce your results.  This is critical because if they cannot, it suggests that one (or both!) of you have made errors in your analysis and the results need to be examined again for validity.  Reproducible Research is an essential part of science and an expectation for all projects in the lab.

In order to create reproducible results, you need to ensure that your research pipelines are organized and well-documented.  Take extensive notes on _each_ step of your experiment.  Note anything that might be relevant: reagent sources, lot numbers, the presence of an odd smell when you pulled your cells from the incubator, the name of the algorithm you used to generate your results, what statistical tests were performed, etc.  If you are coding, make sure that your code is clearly commented.  Build some time into your daily routine to document what you did that day.  Not only will it allow others to reproduce your work, but it will be a good way to track your own productivity, and makes writing papers easier!

### Open science

Our policy on open science is simple: we share all data, materials, and code when posting a preprint or publishing a paper, whenever possible. Sometimes there are circumstances where we cannot do this (e.g., we do not own the data, so we are legally obligated to keep it private; or we need to hold off on public sharing until a paper is published to avoid getting scooped).  **Please check with me before sharing data, materials, or code publicly for this reason,** but most of the time I'll tell you to put it into a repository right away.

Generally, we post preprints of articles at the same time that we submit them to journals. We typically use **biorXiv**.

### Authorship

Like other labs, we will follow the APA guidelines with respect to authorship:

> "Authorship credit should reflect the individual's contribution to the study. An author is considered anyone involved with initial research design, data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval. However, the following do not necessarily qualify for authorship: providing funding or resources, mentorship, or contributing research but not helping with the publication itself. The primary author assumes responsibility for the publication, making sure that the data are accurate, that all deserving authors have been credited, that all authors have given their approval to the final draft; and handles responses to inquiries after the manuscript is published."

At the start of a new project, the researcher taking on the lead role can expect to be first author (or co-first, if two people are working together).  Christoph will typically be the last author, unless the project is mostly under the guidance of another PI and he is involved as a secondary PI. &#x20;

Many of our projects will have many collaborators and people's roles shift over the course of a project. That's OK, so long as everyone is kept on the same page about how these roles will affect authorship. This means both that people who help over the course of the project may be added to the author list (depending on their contribution) and that people's placement in the author list may shift (if the size or importance of their contribution change relative to the rest of the group). Changes in authorship will always be discussed with all authors. All of these issues will be discussed openly, and you should feel free to bring them up if you are not sure of your authorship status or feel you are not getting the credit you deserve for a paper.

{% hint style="info" %}
**Old Projects**

Sometimes a project may be set aside or abandoned by a researcher only to be taken up again by someone new, or, in _very_ rare cases, Christoph might need to reassign manuscripts and/or data to balance workloads or get some important data published.

In both of these situations, it is assumed that whoever brings the project over the finish line will receive first author credit, with the original researcher getting credit somewhere in the middle.
{% endhint %}

### Notifying co-authors of research products

It's always a good idea to keep your co-authors informed about the progress of research — it's just a nice thing to do. The only cases where it is **absolutely mandatory** to be in touch with co-authors, however, are about research products: **when a paper, poster, or other product is preprinted, submitted, revised, or published.**

At the very least, **you must notify co-authors when any of these things happen** and provide them with a copy of the research product in question (even if there wasn't time to wait for them to approve it). Most of the time, you should be working with co-authors directly on editing these products _before_ any of these things happen (though for co-authors whose contributions are basically complete, it's fine to, e.g., send them a quick email to indicate that you've submitted a poster).

This is really important! Nobody likes their name used without permission, and nobody likes finding out that their name is on something that they didn't approve (especially when they wanted to approve it). **As a rule of thumb, before you submit any research product, always chat with Christoph about whether it needs a round of commenting from him and/or other co-authors before submission.** Make sure you give Christoph at least a week's notice for this.
