Misleading Research Recruitment and Authorship Pressure
Dr. Okafor is a counseling psychologist at a Nebraska university. He is recruiting 120 undergraduates for a study on 'alcohol and mood.' The recruitment flyer says: 'Join our free alcohol-treatment study-guaranteed to reduce drinking-participants receive 3 research credits.' In fact, the study is a 30-minute online survey; participants are randomly assigned to read a vignette; there is no treatment. The consent form says participation is voluntary but does not mention that the survey asks about illegal underage drinking and childhood trauma. Dr. Okafor plans to store identifying data and survey responses together on an unencrypted laptop, and to publish only significant results. A graduate student who collected no data asks to be first author because she needs a publication. The IRB approved a different consent form last year. Dr. Okafor asks whether the flyer is acceptable and how to handle the data and authorship.
1. Identify the problems with the recruitment flyer and consent process under the APA Ethics Code, federal human-subjects rules, and advertising standards.
Read the worked answer
The flyer is misleading and violates research-advertising ethics. It calls a 30-minute vignette survey a 'free alcohol-treatment study,' promises that participation will reduce drinking, and implies treatment when no treatment is provided. APA Standards 8.01, 8.02, and 8.03 require accurate public statements, informed consent, and no deceptive recruitment. The consent form is also inadequate: it omits the sensitive questions about illegal underage drinking and childhood trauma, the limits of confidentiality, the survey nature, and the compensation or credit alternative. The form is outdated and not the IRB-approved version, so enrollment must stop until the IRB approves revised documents. Research credits can be coercive if there is no alternative; provide an equivalent non-research option. The flyer must be corrected before further recruitment.
2. What must Dr. Okafor do about confidentiality, data security, and reporting of results?
Read the worked answer
Identifiers and survey responses should not be stored together on an unencrypted laptop. Dr. Okafor should use encryption, separate the consent and contact list from the data, assign study IDs, limit access, and store data on a secure server. Because the survey asks about illegal underage drinking and trauma, the consent must explain confidentiality limits and the risk of disclosure; a Certificate of Confidentiality may be appropriate. He should report all pre-specified results, not only significant findings, and avoid p-hacking or suppressing null results. If a breach occurs, he must notify the IRB and follow breach procedures. He should also keep data for the required retention period and destroy identifiers when no longer needed.
3. How should authorship be decided, and what should happen with the graduate student's request?
Read the worked answer
Authorship must reflect substantial scholarly contribution. The graduate student collected no data and made no intellectual contribution, so she should not be first author merely because she needs a publication. Dr. Okafor should discuss authorship early with everyone who contributed, use APA Standard 8.12, and document the contributions. Gift authorship is unethical. If the student later contributes to analysis or writing, authorship can be reconsidered in proportion to the contribution. The first author should be the person who made the primary contribution. Dr. Okafor should also correct the recruitment and consent problems before any publication or further data collection.