1. What are the authorship issues in this case?

Dr. Green and Michael LaCour were both remiss in assuring that their article contained their own work (original authorship), the data was correct, and proper protocol / ethics had been adhered to for scientific author publications. If there had been a collaborated website used during their project, like GitHub, then the posted material / information would have been “more in the open” therefore, accessible by others for peer review and constructive criticism. By having more eyes and input into the project, there would have been a greater chance that the discrepancies may have been discovered before the article went to the publishers and underwent their peer-review process.

  1. What are some of the mentoring issues raised by this case?

Since the research was completed by LaCour without the physical presence of his mentor, Dr. Green being present, there should have been a correspondence method established with guidelines so that the student (LaCour) could benefit and flourish under the experienced guidance of his mentor. Using a collaborated website, like GitHub, would have provided that venue for interaction. Suggestions could have been made by the mentor and the student could have submitted his responses. If the blog had included other participants, their input could have raised “red flags” that Dr. Green may have missed. Also with the time and date stamps, it would have provided the proof of when correspondence was done and if there were any changes to the recommendations provided by the mentor to the student.

  1. What are the responsibilities of individuals who co-author papers? What can or should a student (graduate or undergraduate) do when co-author is suspected of falsifying data?

In response to Mr. Kruse’s post, I agree that the material should have been made available by LaCour to Dr. Green prior to submitting the material to the publisher so Dr. Green could have reviewed and validated the material / information. If there had been a collaborated website used (since both individuals were in different locations), the opportunity would have been available for continual correspondence and input from both LaCour and Dr. Green. Changes could have been made as needed and if others were involved in the blog, their input would have proven valuable also. Even if Dr. Green had not caught the mistakes, one of the other participants in the collaborated website could have noticed the “mistakes” and reported it as needed. If proper measures were not followed to correct the problem of the falsified material, the evidence would have been present for others to see and further actions could have been taken.

  1. If you were in Broockman’s and Kalla’s shoes, would you have handled the situation differently and if so, how and why? What issues does this case raise for people who report misconduct (whistleblowers)?

In response to Ms. Simpson’s post, I agree that Broockman and Kalla did the correct things in questioning and investigating the article. If there had been a collaborated website used before the article went to publication, then Brookman and Kalla (or someone else) most likely would not have had to conduct their investigation into the validity of the material. However, I do not believe they would have had as much freedom to post their observations and comments on a collaborated website without consulting with the proper officials first. After getting the approval to post their comments on the collaborated website, then others would have seen their involvement in the dispute and then they would be easily identified as the “whistleblowers”. Depending on the reaction from others on the collaborated website blog, Broockman and /or Kalla could have been commended or ostracized for their actions.

If you were asked to consult for a research project, how would you recommend the integration of GitHub into the workflow? Assume your collaborators have never used GitHub before. Be sure to also explain briefly how it works so they can understand.

If I were consulted for a research project, I would recommend the integration of GitHub into the Workflow by explaining what GitHub is, outlining the valuable aspects of it, and finally incorporating patience into the instruction on how to use Giithub. Once the basic concepts of how details of the research could be monitored and improved upon from input from the GitHub participants, I believe the new participants would be more receptive in learning the often confusing navigation to uploading and merging the files for others to see. One of the first instructions would be to clarify the difference between the main blog and that of the individual. As our REU instructors (Sam and Joe) taught us, both can be differentiated by the number of lines in the heading on the top left of the screen. The next step in the instruction would be to instruct how to create a new file into an individual’s profile from the main one by copying the raw data (from the main file) into a new one in the individual’s profile. It would also be explained that another way the new data could be uploaded / accomplished is by “comparing across forks” and that concept would have to be explained. Finally, after any data that was ready to be merged into the main blog, the detailed process would have to explained. This process would be explained when the data from the participant was ready to be uploaded. The pathway would have to be explained on how to create a new fork and then merge it (the participant’s data) with the main blog containing information entered from the other participant’s data. If everyone still had their sanity and weren’t too terribly confused afterwards, then the benefits and rewards could be began to be seen. Afterwards, through patience and guidance of the instructor, and willful participation of other members in the group, other applications using GitHub could be explored, like RStudio (another valuable tool).