I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. Let me see if I have this right: a research project is (a) going to made into a conference presentation and (b) has been submitted for publication. Are you asking if this is an acceptable or ethical thing to do?
Based on my experience, I believe that this is a fairly common pratice in both psychology and psychiatry. To be clear: the presentation at the conference is based on the same research as the manuscript submitted for publication but, in all likelihood, they are not the same manuscript (i.e., limitations of time would require the conference presentation to be much shorter -- it would be likely that there would be a seperate paper/poster for this). It seems to me that reasons for doing this include: (1) Establishing priority: presentations at a conference usually occur in a shorter time frame than that for publication (publication can take years -- I know first hand) and one does not want to get "scooped" while waiting for publication. Conference presentation establishes when one's ideas and research was made public and can help to address claims regarding who did a research project first (e.g., for many years people referred to the Peterson & Peterson memory distractor task until it was pointed out that Brown done a similar study a year previously but published the results in a British journal -- it took some time for American psychologists to get around to calling it the Brown-Peterson procedure). (2) Nonpublication of research: just because a manuscript has been submitted for publication, there is no guarantee that it will be accepted for publication or published anywhere (again, I know from first hand experience). However, conference presentations identify that the research was indeed publicly presented. Conference programs that include the abstract of the presentations (e.g., the Eastern Psychological [EPA] Association, the Psychonomics Society, etc.) provide a record of the presentation and, in some cases, if it was a paper presentation, the original paper may have been put into a publicly accessible archive (e.g., I made a 1980 EPA presentation on research using a bilingual lexical decision task which I did not submit for publication; ERIC, however, requested a copy of the paper and I provided them a copy which is available through www.eric.ed.gov) (3) Grant funded research: it has also been my experience that various grant funding agencies like to see presentations of the work that they fund. NIMH had in the past provided (a) specific meetings for such funded research and (b) published the papers from such meetings as preliminary reports in journals such as Psychopharmacology Bulletin). Again, the programs for certain conference/meetings will contain the abstract of the presentation and this will serve as evidence that one is being productive with the research funding. One organization that does this annually is the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) which makes their programs and abstract available to the public; see: http://www.cpdd.vcu.edu/Pages/Meetings/MeetProgAbSearchAll.html However, the expectation is that presentations made a meetings like CPDD will eventually make their way into a peer-reviewed journal and not just the meeting's program and the annual report to the funder. So, perhaps you can be clearer on the objection. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] -------Original Message---------------- On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:30:25 -0700, wrote: I hope Miguel is reading messages for this list...but others also, please chime in. It's at least partly an ethics issue. I have a student who is going through the grad school application process. She worked with a professor (not me) on a project who submitted the work as a manuscript which is currently under review. This professor has also submitted (subsequently) a conference presentation with almost the same exact title (one word was swapped out for a synonym). The content appears to be the same. I think this is flagrant double-dipping to pad a vita and I'm afraid it might backfire on her if she lists both on her vita. I believe that for students who don't have much on their CV, that such similar titles will immediately stand out as double-dipping. I an leaning towards advising her that she should just list the conference, because it is a known acceptance, and hold off on the article under review...and maybe add it only after it is accepted for publication. Or should she list both? Note that she had no control over any of these events. Any thoughts on this? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3999 or send a blank email to leave-3999-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
