Psychology, Philosophy, Publication, and Ethical Research Guidelines in all Fields of Study: Preparation for Writing an Original, Quality Thesis


In cases where I am called on to review a thesis or dissertation, I hesitate, frequently decline, and (with rare exceptions) I feel fear, then ultimately despair at the puerile paucity of knowledge that is contained in poorly invested, investigated, and roughly researched papers that aspire to the title and name of thesis—yet have nothing in common with a real thesis.1  The theses that I have read over the past fifty years have been at best blatant, bland, barren, crass “cut-and-past”, or more precisely, bypassing deliberate plagiarism to outright theft of intellectual property rights.2  This has become so common, that I walk away with an apologia at best, or just express my “regrets” that I am not capable of weighing in on the theses as most writers assume that “by paying my money I deserve a superior grade, your signature, and the degree.”  “Sorry,” I begin my response, “I am not a pedantic primitive prostitute,” and, as politely as possible, decline the invitation without using an abrupt negative response composed of a monosyllablic declination.

While I commonly hear from the “offended” student that I can be replaced or forcibly retired (I am definitely past the minimal retirement age, and for many universities past the maximum age for forced retirement), I am fortunate to have a solid, intelligent Academic Dean who rejects any similar thought and says that I may teach as long as I wish and feel capable of rendering solid responses to queried3 questions, encourage critical and independent thinking, and work tirelessly with all students who request assistance—and best of all, permitted me to initiate the matriculation and development of Honors courses.  Intellectuals of the superior caliber of Luis Amado Barrera Arrestégui are a rare and noble find, and any university would be proud to have Barrera Arrestégui on its Board of Directors and in any altitudinous academic position to guide teachers and students.

While I fully endorse, support, and encourage others to hold rigid their academic pursuits in applause of the now cherished clichéd “publish-or-perish” phrase that energetically elevates the mind above mere classroom regurgitation and reiteration of the work of someone else that may or may not have passed peer-review, it is lamentably and frequently an abused guideline when people (both academics and non-academics) seek out the fortuned favors of a foundation or an invidious investor as a part of the program to solicit, pay for, and seek privileges from any investigation of any topic selected for research and publication and devolves into the modern cry for “who gets credit for authorship”–just to retain their jobs or to rise up the stepsin the academic hierarchy.  Some schools, industries, political entities, and others actually demand that their name is coupled with the list of authors, and come before the quaint and frequently misused exempli gratia (e.g.): a term that actually implies the deliberate intention to exclude others as not being worthy of recognition4—a fault usually used by poorly trained librarians: putauerimus nos uidere rem quondam extra nos positam.

Antecedent calls for research

Thales of Miletus

Thales of Miletus

Research and research guidelines are nothing new, and have been known and used since 1000 BCE, although few modern researchers read ancient Greek or other early languages and thus prove a poverty of intellectual understanding on the issue of research and research guidelines.   Succeeding generations engaged in as much plagiarism and intellectual theft as do contemporary researchers—but with less finesse. For example, the famous eclipse of 28 May 585 BCE became the backbone for the fantasy of the war of Joshua 5 when the kings of Lydia (Alyattes) and Media (Cyaxares) fought a battle on that day, leading Thales of Miletus to seek reliable information if such a battle occurred (and predicting that it did occur: meaning it was possible since it took place during a partial moon) and propelling him to do geometrical research6 that enabled him to measure the pyramids,7 possibly because he was also engaged in trade 8.  Thales wisely ignored the gods and all divine intervention and looked for deeper causes, as any good researcher would do, giving no credit to a plethora of deities but to a single cause: the interaction of planets. Thales died in 547 BCE, having authored Nautical astronomy (ναυτικά αστρονομία), On the Solstice (Στο ηλιοστάσιο) 9, and On the Equinox (Από την ισημερία) all in poetry,10 the genre of the time in which Thales lived; some scholars argue that all three accounts may be from a single poem.11 All ancient mathematicians, philosophers and scholars in agreement that Thales stated that the Earth (soil) floats on water like an ark (giving the antecedent to the myth of the Great Flood and Noah.12 Thales, through research, discovered the seasons,13 determined the diameters of the sun and the moon,14 and Herodotus gives authorship to a “deliberative body” for a government for Ionia to Thales, as well, especially with Thales of Miletus being the first to reject that the earth is flat and declared it to be spherical15, countering Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus who argued for a flat earth16.  The human “soul” (or mind) is the source for all thinking, personal growth17, and desire to know more. Thales emphatically rejected the “old gods” (superstition) while current mistranslations of Plato, Laws, introduce new gods that are nothing more than the conduct of inquiry, breathing, and laboring to know more through research18



The impact of Thales of Miletus led to an increased rigor for real research, void of any subservience or subordination to any deity or collection of deities or to their priests and priestess who were seen as but mortals with no infallibility or any particular wisdom. What was known was that each person had the ability to think if the individual selected to think critically and weigh each option regardless of community rules, attitudes, desires, or self-centered beliefs. This led Plato’s to list seven names of the greatest thinkers and researchers known at that time. stating: ‘A man’s ability to utter such remarks (notable, short and compressed) is to be ascribed to his perfect education. Such men were Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of Mitylene, Bias of Priene, Solon of our city (Athens), Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen, and, last of the traditional seven, Chilon of Sparta. . . . and you can recognize that character in their wisdom by the short memorable sayings that fell from each of them’ 19.

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul (Bronze statue by Léon-Alexandre Delhomme 1868)

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul (Bronze statue by Léon-Alexandre Delhomme 1868)

Democritus (Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos, “chosen of the people”) of Abdera, a fifth century BCE researcher. Democritus was the first to give substance to the theory of atoms to explain why things were possible, and rejected and concept of divine intervention.

Democritus of Abdera (c. 400 BCE)

Democritus of Abdera (c. 400 BCE)

Democritus recognized the consequence of his theory inasmuch as it allowed mortals to use their senses and not be enslaved by superstition in the form of religion. In this regard, Democritus opposed the philosophy of Parmenides of Elea who rejected change as possible (known as “being to not being”).  A pupil of Leucippus, Democritus, although disliked by Plato who wanted to burn all his books, is considered by many as the father of modern science, and attempted to explain the world without reasoning to purpose, prime mover, or final cause, antedating Stephen Hawking’s comment that there is no need for a creator as the universe was self-born by combustion (the Big Bang). For Democritus of Abdera, there was a logical and understandable answer for everything without divine intervention or intercession.  Logic prevailed over mythology and superstition, oracles or orations by self-styled intercessors who enjoyed the fat of meat sacrificed on altars created for their personal pleasures and predatory practices.

Hippocrates of Cos

Hippocrates of Cos

Hippocrates (Ἱπποκράτης) of Cos, known as the greatest physician of all times, refused to accept popular definitions of illness or that they were the punishment of gods.  Instead, Hippocrates (460 – 377 BCE; he died at Larissa, Thessaly), demanded a thorough investigation of any patient with any perceived or assumed illness, and to research all possibilities of cure, discarding those that relied on sorcery or oracles or religious supplications for adjustment or help from special deities, such as Hermes who was called “a beautiful naked boy but with no background or learning in medicine.”  Hippocrates declared that several diseases were the result of wrong living (insufficient sleep, dependency on alcohol or hallucinogenics such as those used by famed Oracles) or poor diet.  To this end, Hippocrates founded the first medical school in the western European world.20 On Hippocrates scorn for religion, the sage scolded in his work On Forecasting Diseases: “I believe that it is an excellent thing for a physician to practice forecasting 21. “He will carry out the treatment best if he knows beforehand from the present symptoms what will take place later,” and told his medical students:

Hippocratic Oath

Hippocratic Oath

“First of all the doctor should look at the patient’s face. If he looks his usual self this is a good sign. If not, however, the following are bad signs – sharp nose, hollow eyes, cold ears, dry skin on the forehead, strange face color such as green, black, red or lead colored. If the face is like this at the beginning of the illness, the doctor must ask the patient if he has lost sleep, or had diarrhea, or not eaten.”  Hippocrates firmly believed that all diseases had a natural cause (or causes) and only fools went to priests or prayer for cures: “Men believe only that it is a divine disease because of their ignorance and amazement.”22  To this end the first true doctor in western civilization crafted not only medical devices that were used throughout Europe until the Modern and Industrial Ages, but are the ancestor to many contemporary instruments and practices from resetting elbows to aid with hemorrhoids inflamed with a persistent increase in venous pressure.  Hippocrates was even better known for his requirement that all surgeons and medical practioners take a special oath to assist everyone who came to the doctor in quest of healing: the Hippocratic Oath that is still administered today.

Aristotle of Stagira

Aristotle of Stagira

Among the ancients, the most famous thinker was the erudite student of Plato: the Macedonian scientist Aristotle of Stagira (384-322 BCE). Among the subjects he studied was biology, and became famous for his scientific writings.  Like those who came before him, Aristotle rejected common consensus as immature and demanded a detailed investigation into all things, leading him to author Prior Analytics (describing the rules of logic and regulations of research), Physics (on the reality around him), Animal History (that refined the science of study of animals), Rhetorics (on how to speak to be understood and inspire investigation and research), Poetics (that refurbished the intrinsic of writing), Metaphysics (on speculation), Nicomachean Ethics (requiring that all research follow and refurbish ethics and ethical consideration), and (Politics).

Euclid the mathematician

Euclid the mathematician

Euclid (c. 300 BCE) is given credit as a great mathematician, but should be known for summarizing and systematizing all mathematical knowledge of his age. His own contribution to mathematics was his argument that there are infinite numbers of prime numbers and that mathematics would unlock the universe to further studies, as proven by Stephen Hawking who was Lucian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. His greatest work was his study of optics and rejection of past arguments that vision was a gift of the gods.  He expanded on the benefits of music and theorized on its advance. His studies were incorporated into printed works that were kept at the famed Museum (Musaeum: Μουσεῖον a Greek Temple, or “House of Muses” that was a philosophical school for study and research23) of Alexandria (a scientific institute created by Pharaoh Ptolemy I Soter) until early Christians burned it and the renowned Library of Alexandria (bibliothekai (βιβλιοθñκαι) and was known as “the place for the cure of the soul)24 in a fanatical expression of religious zealotry under Pope Theophilus whose followers burned alive its great mathematician and librarian: Hypatia (ancient Greek: Υπατία; her murder marked the end of Classical antiquity):25, who corrected most works with accurate scholarship,26 including Theon’s commentary on Almagest, as well as Almagest itself,27 becoming one of the most poignant symbols of “knowledge and culture destroyed” by religion in 391 CE.28

Aristarchus of Samos correctly defining order of planets in orbit around the sun

Aristarchus of Samos correctly defining order of planets in orbit around the sun

Antedating Nicholas Copernicus, Aristarchus (Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarkhos, 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE) of Samos was an astronomer and mathematician argued about the immense size of the universe and rejected the theory that Ptolemy later detailed that man and the water planet Earth were the center of the universe.  Aristarchus research and teaching displaced the special role of man that emerging religious in the Middle East required to buttress their claims of supremacy and enable priests to live off the labor of others. 

Aristarchus's 3rd-century BCE calculations on the relative sizes of (from left) the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century CE Greek copy

Aristarchus’s 3rd-century BCE calculations on the relative sizes of (from left) the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century CE Greek copy

Aristarchus predated and surpassed, in many ways, Copernicus.  Influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but he identified the “central fire” with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun, being freed from any theocratic regime or ontology–leaving those behind as the fairy tales of illiterate who sought to control the masses for the benefit of a few.

In this regard Aristarchus of Samos is later joined by Seleucus (Σέλευκος) of Seleukia (c. 190 BCE fl. 150s BCE, is best known as a proponent of heliocentricism using argument and reasoning from actual research,29 and his theory of the origin of tides,30 that Seleucus of Seleukia concurred with and promoted.31

Heraclitus of Ephesus

Heraclitus of Ephesus

Heraclitus of Ephesus practiced, what many saw as strange, a pedagogy that required his students to think critically.  He used a variety of arguments, including the idea that the universe was logos: it was rationally organized and thus understandable. A second thesis was that oppositions are but aspects of one reality, and all was real. He demanded serious study, debate, and critical thinking, expelling students who stole the idea of others or from previous teachers, claiming that intellectual property remained with the author and had to be attributed to the author by anyone citing it, regardless of the time the initial argument was made.32

Plotinus and the Monistic theory

Plotinus and the Monistic theory

Plagiarism became more popular under Plotinus (Πλωτῖνος; c. 204/5–270)and that led to the idea that there was nothing real except for the unknown One God/Primary Source or Highest Intellect. Research was forsaken in favor of memorization and regurgitation, and thinking demeaned to the point that independent thought was considered blasphemy against the One God/Primary Source who was the highest left of intellect. According to Plotinus, man would free his soul through the process of ascesis (ασκήσουν), technically, the exercise of self-discipline that included self-denial and asceticism stemming from Pythagoras’ philosophy that called for abstaining from all forms of temptations including alcohol, drugs, sex, and encouraged meditation on suffering, chastity and abstinence, starving one-self, or flagellating one’s flesh.33  This gave rise to modern flagellation practices, especially with Opus Dei founder José Maria Escrivá who in excessive enthusiasm regularly beat his flesh so that his bathroom was covered with his blood,34 as did John Paul II,35 etc., and unite with god, thereby discounting everything and everyone before the union. There is no biblical justification for flagellation, as it was used as a punishment for crimes with the Jesus of the New Testament flagellated by Roman soldiers but no where do the ancient scrolls claim that this Jesus welcomed or respected physical self-abuse. Self-flagellation is a form of masochism, and needs psychiatric care.36  One aspect of learning that was critical to Plotinus was that his students use words correctly, conscientiously, and carefully. The strategy of sectarians taking Greek terms from philosophical contexts and re-applying them to religious contexts was popular in Christianity, the Cult of Isis and other ancient religious contexts.  The efforts of many Christian apologists to turn Plotinus into a Christian were rebuffed with scorn.  Plotinus and the Neoplatonists viewed Gnosticism viewed as a form of intellectual heresy or sectarianism (relating to a sect, as second and third century chrestianos and christianos were seen) to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy of the Mediterranean and Middle East.  Plotinus’ greatest objection to Gnosticism, found in his Enneads, was what he interpreted their preaching to claim: that the world was evil (and even a prison) and things of the flesh were false (read chapter 3 on the eternity and eternality of the universe).  For Plotinus “heaven” was a realm of thoughts and ideas (not a place for souls after death) and not a real world of illusionary appearance.

APA Guidelines

While there are many who guide these tattered theses chaffy and amour propre seeking with multiple littérateurists try to reason with the authors to talk with the investigators, researchers, and writers to see if they are able to come to some agreement as to who should be singled out for authorship, this leads to animosity and hostility, the American Psychological Association (APA) has published an ethics code, specifying that “faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate”.  The APA guide is worthy, but the APA’s stellar intentions frequently leads to tensions and rejection by coworkers who feel singled out as “not being worthy” or recognition and generates thoughts and actions leading to various forms of sabotage to the work in question. As the APA acknowledges37 the APA Ethics Code “applies only to psychologists whose activities are part of their scientific, educational or professional roles as psychologists” and does not apply to other sciences, subjects, the arts or related topics, especially in the field of foreign language investigation and research, translation, interpretation, the social sciences, and so forth.  The problem comes when any center of high education and stringent learning adopts the APA style to ensure uniformity that institution actual hampers true scientific, stringent, exacting, scrupulous and determined conduct of inquiry and denigrates results.  This leads even to a more tenacious and implacable resolve that can actually impair if not alter or degrade learning and create a form of self-loathing or internal insecurity in the mental state of the meticulous, punctilious, scrupulous and adamantine learner leading to slipshod slovenliness. Thinking outside of the metaphorical box of extant research on any topic, as Tami P. Sullivan has clearly shown in her study of the risks of going beyond what is expected, is saturated with dangers, including violence, but this stops no true literati or intellectual, as shown with the stubborn responses of Galileo Galilee to the Roman Inquisition in the seventeenth century.38 With the risks inherent in serious scholarship and researchers under the pressure for publication the challenges become more acute and with each new challenge the collapse of ethics in elevation of standard status quo reiteration and publication. 

As the APA Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, noted: “we know from social science research that people often overvalue their contributions to a project.”  Behnke continues that “[m]ere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit … Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately … in footnotes or in an introductory statement.” Contributions that are primarily technical do not justify inclusion in authorship.  Technical contributions do not consist of nor buttress critical thinking and resulting determination of new ideas and presentation, articulation, or publication of those ideas.  Those who insist on accreditation frequently suffer from psychoneurosis, the delusion of persecution, if they are not recognized with peers because of their limited contribution and project hatred on those outside of the intimate group that initiated the research but was chastised as only being transient to the project itself and not a true contributor—as with corporations, schools, departments within schools and those who sit in endowed chairs.39 “The crowd a creature of hate.” The greatest treat are students who feel entitled to recognition, and high grades and even degrees, based on their attendance but non-participation in classes, are disruptive, feel entitled to the rewards they have not worked for, and pose a physical threat to other students, their teachers, and administrators. 40  This tends to be elevated, at least for me, by students who feel they are entitled to a degree and having their thesis accepted regardless of the paucity of information, lack of academic quality in its writing, and poor knowledge of the area, while claiming a right to graduation based on paying tuition and sleeping in class. It is not low-self esteem that leads to aggression, but rather an inflated sense of self-esteem coupled with a persecution complex that leads to aggression. 41 The self-contained group therefore demands a victim and that victim is the peer-review committee that it chastises, or the members of the thesis that undissuadable to include the senior figure’s name among the authors.

There is a caveat, however, that true ethics requires that if in the review process, or even after publication, that if the authors discover errors that change the interpretation of text and research findings, the authors are ethically obligated to promptly correct the errors in a correct, erratum, retraction, or by various other means.  This does not mean that a typographical error that has no true relevance on the publication must encounter the scruples of the editors or peer review committee, as true typographical errors can be accepted, albeit reluctantly, if the text and  interpretation is not altered.  For example, in my article on Translation and its problems in a scholarly scientific journal, I noted to my horror that in footnote 3, there was typographical error on the publication date of the Spanish edition42 that came from the 1988 publication of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes was given as 1888—and Hawking was not even born in that year.

There is, acknowledgeable and necessary to recognize, that there is fraud even with the peer-review process. Many of the peer-reviewers do not have the required expertise to review what is submitted. Standards are lowered for “acclaimed” researchers and writers, and some professional journals have a minimum of two reviewers over any article submitted, while other reviewers accept gratuities for favorable reviews and acceptance, and allow the scholar to respond to negative reviews before reaching an editorial decision, all that is unethical.43  In one study it was found that out of 136 editors and associate editors of psychology journals, 61.6% had published at least one article in their journal after accepting an appointment as editor or associate editor—with 41% of the editors and 20.5% of the associate editors reporting that they “may have” been aided by their positions. 44

Ethics Facing the Researcher: The Issue of Ethics and Intellectual Property Rights

The greatest problem that researchers make is not keeping a copy of the data that is used for the publication.45  Without proof of what is said, the researcher can be accused of falsifying records, constructing or misconstruing facts and academic deficiency.  Researchers must keep copies of what was used in order to verify their conclusions to anyone who questions, doubts or offers rebuttals.

The APA Ethics Code requires psychologist to release their data to any other psychologist who wants to verify the authenticity, reliability, veracity and exactness of any data published or citation claimed, with the caveat that the shared data can only be used for reanalysis. This is frequently the case for other professional groups, but it is not universal; however, when requested to see data on which assumptions, theories, and final statements are released in publication form, it is ethical for all researchers and writers to make their sources known, at least in footnotes, and documentation of oral information and interview known with careful consideration.

There may be calls from peers, other researchers, and the general public to see details of data (known as data sharing), but this has many problems including the issue of confidentiality. Confidentiality should never be violated.  To avoid any exposure of any participant it is best to give the participant a pseudonym or use initials or numbers to identify the participant.  These should be kept in a secured and protected place.  To ascertain veracity and viability, the researcher should keep separate statistics with the information gained from the participants whose names are encrypted so that peer review can question the actual data but not the individual.  Furthermore, to protect the participant or subject, the researcher is under moral and ethical obligation to not leave any questionnaire or any interview transcript on tables or in public places, but store the information in a locked file or drawer.  When the researcher writes up the details of the research project, the researcher should change the participants’ names and personal details.46

Any time that a researcher makes an audio tape or video of the participants’ actions or expressions, the researcher must read into the media used the consent form and has the participant verbally consent without revealing his or her name.  Audio and video tapes must be clearly marked and identified as research material so that one is not used in error thinking that it is a movie or music to be played publicly.  Any identifying information that is not relevant to the interview, such as a person’s name, address, and so forth) must be destroyed immediately unless the participant agrees to, in writing, that the information can be retained for later reference.

Researchers must obtain the consent of those interviewed about data sharing.47  If the participant rejects the idea or request for data sharing, the researcher must honor that denial. This includes all forms of data sharing: audio and video tapes, films, and so forth, correspondence and compositions, and so forth—even if the names of those interviewed are technically deleted or hidden. Internet interviews, as with The University of Texas at Austin Regnerus48 The entire study was funded by the Consortium and other anti-LGBT groups that provided the “expert witnesses” selected by Robert P. George the founder of National Organization for Marriage49 with others from the Witherspoon Foundation that approached Regnerus to falsify statistics that would be transmogrified into declaring the only children in a traditional home of one female mother and one male father would have a normal childhood and life50 are never appropriate nor professional as not only can the results not be verified, there is no way to determine the veracity, credibility or reliability of the participants nor even of the researcher who easily could have fabricated the responses, as with Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin.51

Critical Issues facing the Researcher

Critical to this issue is the consciousness of the researcher on the multiple roles the researcher plays in the investigative process and assembly of data and facts and their gathering. True researchers avoid any semblance of bias or working for alternative reasons—concentration must be focused on the research and publication—not colleagues or those interviewed or visited with at the time of the conduct of inquiry.52 While it is not unethical to work with a significant other or a loved person, it should be avoided to restrain and constrain any semblance of favoritism or possibility of collusion.  This is another reason I oppose team projects as it is too tempting to have someone the researcher is affectionate towards to remain objective and offer serious consideration as to the person’s contribution, value of contribution, and extent of that contribution, such as writing a thesis that enhances, enables or enriches a patron or benefactor, school or department, or even a political cause or case against any group of unit of people, as with the unethical, slanted, biased and paid for by numerous political groups report by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin who was in the pay of the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.53

Mark Regnerus (UT-Austin Sociology professor)

Mark Regnerus (UT-Austin Sociology professor)

Not only is the Regnerus report filled with half-truths and untruths, but the survey taken was a web survey that has never been considered legitimate science.54 Regnerus has never addressed the criticisms of his peers, yet over 200 scholars in his field have rejected the work as biased and unsound, having issued a caveat on the work55, sending a letter to the publisher, Social Science Review (published by Elsevier), pointing out the errors.56  Regnerus, himself, attempted to disassociate himself from his studies when he fraudulently claimed that the research was not about same-sex parents, yet in his abstract, The University of Texas at Austin professor wrote: “I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when com-pared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.”57

If researchers use students or clients as participants in research studies, the students and/or participants should not be related to the researcher in any degree or familiarity, or the research takes on the distraction of being unscientific and indefensible.  If the students or participants are not familiar with the researcher, the researcher must make it clear that participation is voluntary, that the participation has an educative value, and the student will learn from the experiment—and be given equitable alternatives to participating in the research without penalty.58  The researcher must outline the nature and structure of the research, include a declaration of the structure of any supervisory relationship before supervision begins, and offer a written agreement that both the researcher and the students or clients agrees to and understands their separate responsibilities as well as authorship considerations (if the students and/or clients offer only answers to a survey, they are not entitled to an authorship entry).59

In every case where research includes using any person of any age or any gender:  male, female, transgender, and so forth, the participant must be informed of what will be investigated and told of informed-consent rules while the researcher uses true beneficence (from the Latin: beneficentia.60  Beneficence is a word that means to most people “charity” but in truth is defined as doing no harm to anyone and maximizing possible benefits while minimizing possible harms: 61

  1. Purpose of the research and the determination if the research requires opinions or facts about the participant’s life or associates and to what extent.  In the USA the participant by law must be at least eighteen years old (this applies to all genders).  The subject must consent to any questioning for the research to be ethically sound. The purpose of the research to be valid must investigate any area or any issue on which little previous work has been carried out, or the work that was completed can be shown to be weak or biased.62 The purpose of research can be (1) exploratory: where little previous work was carried out; (2) speculative: where researchers consider current situations and attempt to predict future implications of existing research; (3) descriptive: illuminating relationships, patterns, and links between variables, as with the reasons for study skills or course drop-out rates; (4) explanatory: showing why relationships, patterns, and links occur such as why student retention either exists or does not exist; (5) predictive: developing a model to forecast a likely course events under variable circumstances or intervening variables; (6) evaluative: determining what effect a new law or regulation, for example, might have on an individual community, or political entity at any level; (7) semantic: finding the causal relationship and effect words have on people; (8) and so forth.
  2. Expected duration of the research and any remuneration that might be offered.  The duration must be expressed in the number of days, weeks, or years, and have the written consent of the subject for the researcher to proceed.63
  3. Procedures of the research: the participant must be fully informed as to the activities the participant will be asked to complete, how much time these procedures will require, and what is expected of the participant. Techniques that are to be used in the research investigation must be detailed so that the participant understands precisely what is to happen, the role of the participant, and any documentation or data that the participant will knowingly or unknowingly give to the researcher.64
  4. What the research is investigating. The researcher does not have a professional obligation to reveal specific hypothesis, but must give the participant sufficient information that enables the participant to understand the research.
  5. Participants’ right to decline to participate. To pressure anyone to participate in any research project is tantamount to torture and the results are invalid by argument of coercion that is both illegal and unethical.65
  6. Participants’ right to withdraw from the research once it has started. Coercion is illegal, immoral, and unethical, and to restrain anyone by any means to participate in any research project is antithetical to the research objective.66
  7. Participants’ right to know of anticipated consequences. This must include all possible side-effects, including what is most common; for example, if the research includes eating less over a period of a few months, the participant must be informed that he or she may lose weight, be gaunter, and so forth.67
  8. Participants’ right to know of potential risks, discomfitures or adverse effects and whether or not the risks, discomfitures or adverse effects will be physical or psychological and what might be their longevity with the subject; participants should never leave the research feeling bad about themselves, or feeling incompetent or inferior as the researcher has the ethical obligation to warn potential participants if the research could lead to distressing thoughts.  At the end of the interview, it is the obligation of the researcher to debrief each participant to assure that there are no negative effects that could lead to self-demeaning thoughts or withdrawal from the group or society, or contemplation of suicide, and so forth.  It is the obligation of the researcher to screen for all risk factors; for example, if the researcher is studying the effect of certain foods or beverages, does the participant have diabetes, high blood pressure, and so forth that could rule out the tasting, sampling or eating foods with excess sugar, salt, and so forth.68
  9. Any prospective or determined, agreed upon, or anticipated research benefits. The participants must be informed if there are any benefits for participating in the study for either the researcher or for the research and participants.  If it is a part of a class assignment, the participants must know what benefits are possible, such as extra merit points, or if it is to fulfill a class assignment that does not infringe upon the time of the participant unless the participant agrees to additional time to assist the researcher.69
  10. Incentives for participation with the foremost benefit being a fuller discovery of the self and the subject matter; if remuneration is a part of the incentives to be offered, the amount should be stated initially, and how it is determined: based on time, activity, cooperation, and so forth.70
  11. Limits of confidentiality and when confidentiality must be broken. Confidentiality rules must be clearly and precisely stated including the researcher’s use of participants’ names and conditions under which the researcher would or could reveal participants identity.71
  12. Who participants can contact with questions.  It is imperative that all participants have the knowledge of whom they can question about the research: not only the researcher but the supervisor or superior to the researcher. While the researcher is in charge of the research, the researcher must have senior members of the faculty or institute who oversee and authorize the research and review the findings.
  13. Research strategies.72 All strategies from audio recordings, video transcriptions, tests, essay composition, and physical activities must be spelled out clearly, concisely, completely, and correctly for the participants to see, digest, and understand, or ask questions about before engaging in assisting in the research project, and is ethically indispensible.73
  14. Illegal activities and behaviors are to be weighed carefully, as researchers have no guarantee of confidentially in any investigation or research into illegal actions, and if the researcher collects data on illegal activities the research may be subpoenaed by law enforcement officials or courts.  If the researcher does not release the collected data, the researcher can be subject to monetary fines or jail time if he or she does not comply with the legal authorities.  If it is critical to the research, the researcher must inform all participants about the danger is if they provide information on illegal activities they participate in or have knowledge, and whether or not the researcher will provide details and evidence if required to by law.  Unfortunately as laws become more rigid and spying on everyone more routine, as with NSA as exposed by American Patriot Edward Snowden, research is increasingly handicapped and with it new insights and ways of correcting problems lessened.74
  15. Who the researcher is and who is sponsoring the research: The researcher must disclose his or her name and full contact information.  He or she must provide full disclosure about who is sponsoring the research (such as a government, industry, military, group, and so forth); if the researcher believes disclosure of sponsorship will bias the participant’s responses, the sponsors may be identified at the end of the research rather than at the beginning.75  As in the case of Mark Regnerus, whose bigotry has neither a place in science nor in academe,76 as academic life and teaching is to be objective, verifiable, consistent and in keeping with the principles of academic research and peer-review. The University of Texas at Austin Department of Sociology is as outdated as the Roman Inquisition—and as dangerous since it will not censure one of its own who continues to make errors in research, fact, and publication.
  16. What will happen to the data once the researcher completes his or her work: will the data be destroyed or stored for future use.  Data should never be destroyed since there is the possibility of being questioned about it and the reliability of the data and the role of participants, number of people who are to be interviewed, any perceived or expressed bias, and so forth, as with the paucity and fabrication of the study of Mark Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin.77

If researchers use under-age,78 poorly educated, or incompetent subjects, the person who is in charge of the participant must be accorded the same rights and made fully aware of both the risks and benefits of the research and proposed study.  In seeking and obtaining consent, the researcher my respect the subject’s right to confidentiality and privacy; respecting the rights of confidentiality and privacy begins with the initial interview, where there must be a variety of options and the subject has the right to decline to answer any or all questions, or stop whenever he or she feels uncomfortable.79 To fulfill the ethical requirements in this regard, the researcher must inform participants how the data the research will gather is to be used, what will be done with audio and video recordings, case material, and photos, and secure the consent of the participants.  Topics that must be avoided including questions about family life, religion, or sex without written permission—and for children participants the reformer must get written consent from the parents (as required in the USA under the Education Act of 1994; some states in the USA require that the psychologist doing the study report any sign of abuse or neglect).80 

Researchers in all fields must be conscious of academic propriety,81 and avoid any frivolous use of time, and be respectful of participants’ time by using the most effective and efficient data collection instrument possible that can be verified, classified, analyzed and meet the most rigid standards for peer-review.  The peer-review process is absolutely essential in any scientific (anthropological, astronomical, biological, sociological, historical, linguistic, sociological, and so forth) contributes to quality control and is an essential step to ascertain the standing and originality of the research, its viability, veracity, usefulness and utility.  A peer-review is the process where objective people with specialization in a field review a paper for proposed publication meets the highest standards in investigation (methodology clearly stated and detailed in the opening chapter), research  that follows all the steps outlined by all professional groups to collect data, translation based on what is universally known and not the popular or vulgar definition of a language commonly known as street idiom, and interpretations based on insight, study, and critical thinking.82

  1. The term “thesis” comes from the Greek θέσις, meaning “something put forth”, and refers to an intellectual proposition.
  2. Burgess, Christopher; Power, Richard (2008). Secrets Stolen, Fortunes Lost: Preventing Intellectual Property Theft and Economic Espionage in the 21st Century. Rockland, MA, USA: Syngress; Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.  Aldrete, Antonio (2011). “Plagio y Otros Transpasos literario-cientificos en medicina y particularmente en anestesiología.” Revista Colombiana de Anestesiologia. Vol. 39, No. 2: 217-229. Müller, Melissa; Blubacher, Thomas; Schnabel, Gunnar; Tatzkow, Monika (2009). Verlorene Bilder, verlorene Leben: Jüdische Sammler und was aus ihren Kunstwerken wurd. München, Deutschland: Elisabeth Sandmann.  Anderson, Judy (1998). Plagiarism, Copyright Violation, and Other Thefts of Intellectual Property: An Annotated Bibliography with a Lengthy Introduction. Jefferson, NC, USA: McFarland & Co.
  3. Queried is the past tense of query and is from the Latin quaere, imperative of quaerere.
  4. E.g. was first used in 1601 to exclude the poor in legal matters.
  5. Joshua 10:12, is a story of psychopath genocide by a miscreant more deadly than Adolf Hitler and a barbaric betrayer of trust and treaties  who waged a holocaust worse than anything the world had witnessed for a demon denizen delighting in suffering and savagery: אָז יְדַבֵּר יְהֹושֻׁעַ לַיהוָה בְּיֹום תֵּת יְהוָה אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר לְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֶשׁ בְּגִבְעֹון דֹּום וְיָרֵחַ בְּעֵמֶק אַיָּלֹון׃.
  6. Proclus, A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Glenn R Morrow (1970). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 64.12-65-13. Cp. Britton, John P.  (1989). “An Early Function for Eclipse Magnitudes in Babylonian Astronomy.” Centaurus,: 32.
  7. G. J. Allman, George Johnston (1877-1885). Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid. Dublin, Ireland: The University Press, in Hermathena, No. v., Dublin, 1877 ; M. Cantor, Moritz (1880), Vortesunyen über Geschichte der Mathematik, Leipsic, Deutschland: B. G. Teubner, 1880 ; P. Tannery, “Thalts de Met ce gel a empruutdr Egypte,” Revue Philosophique, March 1880, cp. Tannery, P. (193). Pour l’histoire de la science hellene … : de Thalés á Empédocle. Paris, France: (s.n).
  8. Solon, c. 2
  9. Cp. Theon of Smyrna ap. Dercyllides 11 A 17, and Diogenes Laertius I.24; cf. Philostratus, Vita Apollonius II.V.
  10. DK, Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz. (1985). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Zurich: Weidmann. 11A2
  11. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c. 480 – c. 429 BCE), Historia. I.74; 141-216f, with Pliny, Naturalis Historia, II.12 in full agreement.
  12. Seneca, Quaestiones Naturales. III.14, cp. Herodotus, Historia, II.156 and Pliny the Younger, Epistlulae VIII.20; cp. Aristotle, De Caelo 294, a30-b1, and more unequivocally in Metaphysics 983 b21, although Aristotle had problems with this now proven theory in his De Caelo 294 a33-294 b6. Cp. Diogenes Laertius I.23. All texts are in ancient Greek.
  13. Diogenes Laertius I.27.
  14. Apuleius, Florida 18; Cleomedes, De Mortu circulari corporum caelestium, II.75.
  15. Aëtius III.9-10.
  16. Aristotle, De Caelus 294 b14-15; cp. Cicero, De Republica I.XIII.22
  17. Plato, Cratylus 399 D-E
  18. Laws, 899 A-B; on the teaching and research emphasis of Thales, read: Snell, Bruno. (1944). “Die Nachrichten über die Lehren des Thales und die Anfänge der griechischen Philosophie – und Literaturgeschichte.” Philologus 96: 170-182.
  19. Protagoras, 342 E-343 A
  20. Garrison, Fielding H. (1966), History of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA: W.B. Saunders Company: 92-97 . Jones, W. H. S. (1868), Hippocrates Collected Works I. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge Harvard University Press.
  21. I.e. research.
  22. Hippocrates. On the Sacred Disease. Adams, Francis, editor (2007). Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide Library.
  23. Strabo. Geographica. XVII.1.8: τών δὲ βασιλείων μέρος ἐστὶ καὶ τò Μουσεῖον, ἔχον περίπατον καὶ ἐξέδραν καὶ οἶκον μέγαν ἐν ώ τò συσσίτιον τών μετεχόντων τοủ Μουσείου φιλολόγων áνδρών.  Leipzig: Teubner, ed. Meineke (1877). British Museum Inscription 1076.
  24. MacLeod Roy (2005). The Library of Alexandria: Center of Learning in the Ancient World, New York, NY, USA: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd.
  25. Edward Jay Watts, (2006), City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria. “Hypatia and pagan philosophical culture in the later fourth century”. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press: 197-198.
  26. Engels, David (2009).  “Zwischen Philosophie und Religion: Weibliche Intellektuelle in Spätantike und Islam,“ in: Groß, Domink (Hg.), Gender schafft Wissen, Wissenschaft Gender. Geschlechtsspezifische Unterscheidungen Rollenzuschreibungen im Wandel der Zeit. Kassel, Deutschland: Kassel University Press, 2009: 97-124.
  27. Dzielska, Maria (1995). Hypatia of Alexandria. trans. F. Lyra. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press: 71-72.
  28. Socrates of Constantinople (440 CE). Historia Ecclesiastica. V.16; cp. Paulus Orosius, Historia Paganus. VI.15.32. Cf. El-Abbadi, Mostafa (1990), The Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria (2, illustrated ed.), UNESCO/UNDP, pp. 159, 160. Erksine, Andrew. 1995. “Culture and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and Library of Alexandria”. Greece & Rome, 2nd ser., 42(1), 38–48.
  29. Van der Waerden, B. L. (1987), “The Heliocentric System in Greek, Persian and Hindu Astronomy”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 500: 525–545, specifically p. 528
  30. Heath, Thomas Little; Aristarchus of Samos (1913). Aristarchus of Samos: the Ancient Copernicus: A History of Greek Astronomy to Aristarchus, together with Aristarchus’s Treatise on the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon: A new Greek text with translation and notes. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. For the text itself, read: Aristarchus of Samos (1945?). On the sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon. Annapolis, MD, USA: Privately printed for members only by St. John’s College. Cp. Jessop, Francis (1687). Propositiones hydrostaticae ad illustrandum Aristarchi samii system destinatae; et quadeam phaenomena naturae generalia. Londini, (Great Britain): Prostant apud Sam Smith … & Hen. Fathorn.
  31. Lucio Russo (2003). Flussi e riflussi, Milano, Italia:  Feltrinelli.
  32. Heraclitus of Ephesus; Haxton, Brooks. (2001). Fragments: the Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus. New York, NY, USA: Viking.
  33. Cicero (106-43 BCE), Philippica 2.34, 43; 3.5; 13.15. Horace (Satire, I. iii) writes about horribile flagellum, but the whip so used may have been a rougher sort. These are rituals in the name of the god of the Lupercalia: the flamen dialis was present at the Lupercalia (Ovid Fasti 2. 267-452) in the time of Augustus.
  34. Hutchison, Robert (2006), Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei, New York: St. Martin’s Griffin: 93.
  35. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6143579.html and http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/International/pope-john-paul-whipped-belt/story?id=9674114.
  36. London, Louis S.; Caprio, Frank S. (1950). “Sexual Deviations,” pp. 384-461, in London, Louis S.; Caprio, Frank S. (1950). Sadism and Masochism. Washington, DC, US: The Linacre Press, xviii, 702 pp.
  37. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
  38. Sullivan, Tami P. (2013). “Thinking outside: Advancing risk and protective factor research beyond the intimate-partner-violence box”. Psychology of Violence. 10.1037/a0032125. Vol. 3(2), April: 121-125.
  39. Desire for aggrandizement and recognition without substantive contribution is frequently seen as a form of self-hatred and fear of being left out, leading to demands for inclusion, as detailed by Martin, Everett Dean (1920).  The Behavior of Crowds: A Psychological Study. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan Co. 3 vols., 312 p: pp. 92-132. Martin notes that the crowd hates in order that it may believe in itself, and the individual in quest of recognition does everything, including plagiarism, to achieve recognition.  This is a case of adverse egotism, where a group will install itself as supreme without any qualification, as with the aberration of group-thesis work; cf. Golem de Zavala, Agnieszka; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Iskra-Golec, Irena (2013). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 104 No. 6 (June): 1019-1039.
  40. This is posited by Cale, Ellison M; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2006). “Psychopathy Factors and Risk for Aggressive Behavior: A Test of the ‘Threatened Edotism’ Hypothesis. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9004-5. Law and Human Behavior. Vol. 30, No. 1 (February) 51-74.
  41. Cf. Bushman, Brad J; Baumeister, Roy F. (1998). “Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-love or Self-hate lead to Violence.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219. Vol. 75, No. 1 (July): 219-229.
  42. Historia del Tiempo del Big Bang a los Agujeros Negros since I could not find the English edition, and teach in Perú.
  43. Finke, Ronald A. (1990). “Recommendations for Contemporary Editorial Practices.” American Psychologist. Vol. 45, No. 5 (May): 669-670.
  44. Houlihan, Danie; Hofschulte, Lisa; Sachau, Daniel; Patten, Christi (1992). “Critiquing the Peer Review Process: Examining a Potential Dual Role Conflict. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679. American Psychologist. Vol. 47. No. 12 (December): 1678-1681.  The majority of students surveyed, felt that it was appropriate to publish in their own journals, and in poor nations, especially Latin America, over 87% of all profesor(a)s (Spanish for Teacher) argue that it is acceptable to self-publish that in the world of reality is vanity press and has no foundation to argue for acceptable scholarship.
  45. Plewes, Thomas J (2010). Protecting and Accessing Data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; Wallen, Norman E.; Fraenkel, Jack R. (2000). Educational Research: A Guide to the Process. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on National Statistics. Federman, Daniel D; Hanna, Kathi E; Rodriguez, Laura Lyman; Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting Human Research Participants (2003). Responsible Research: a Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press. Cf. http://www.research.va.gov/programs/PRIDE/conferences/docs/accountability/june2011/5c-fleming.ppt.
  46. Joint Commission Resources, Inc.; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (2001). Protecting Confidentiality. Oakbrook Terrace, IL, USA: Joint Commission Resources, Inc.;  Luepker, Ellen T. (2003). Record Keeping in Psychotherapy and Counseling; Protecting Confidentiality and Professional Relationship. New York, NY, USA: Brunner-Routledge; Rothstein, Mark A. (1997). Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press. Walkowiak, Vincent S. (2004). Attorney-client Privilege in Civil Litigation: Protecting and Defending Confidentiality.  Chicago, IL, USA:  ABA (American Bar Association); Citro, Constance F; Ilgen, Daniel R; Marrett, Cora Bagley; National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on Institutional Review Boards, Surveys, and Social Science Research; National Research Council (U.S.). Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences.; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on National Statistics. (2003). Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Sciences Research. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
  47. Shipler, David K. (2011). The Rights of the People: How Our Search for Safety Invades Our Liberties. New York, NY, USA: Alfred A. Knopf.
  48. Regnerus, Mark  (2012a). “Parental Same-sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering Critics of the New Family Structures Study with Additional Analyses”. Social Science Research. Vol. 41, No. 6 (November): 1367-1377; Regnerus, Mark (2012b). “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” Social Science Research. Vol. 41, No. 4 (July): 752-770. As the publisher ultimately admitted, none of these articles underwent legitimate thorough peer-review, and are thoroughly flawed. Cf. Regnerus, Mark; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (2012c). New Family Structures. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
  49. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/university-of-texas-opens-investigation-of-regnerus-study-ncrm-reporting-plays-central-role/legal-issues/2012/07/01/42495. On how the deliberate distortion of facts and degeneration of research ethics was used by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a conservative political and religious group, read http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/07/11/controversial-parenting-study-reaches-courts
  50. http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/08/14/regnerus-was-approached-to-do-anti-gay-parenting-study-by-witherspoon-institute/; cp. http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-study-design.pdf.
  51. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12). For a debate on the merits of Regnerus’ study and The University of Texas at Austin Department of Sociology’s support of Regnerus, read: http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/27819558/m/4110040392001?r=4520060392001.
  52. Hunnicutt, Susan (2011). Media Bias. Detroit, MI, USA: Greenhaven Press. Smail, Barbara (1984). Girl-friendly Science: Avoiding Sex Bias in the Curriculum. York, UK: Longman. Henderson, Patricia E. (1990).  Prejudice Against Older Job Seekers: Additional Information in Resumes (sic) as a Means of Avoiding Bias. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of Manitoba. Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba.
  53. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/06/11/children_same. Much of Regnerus’ study is rejected by Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos, and Naomi G. Goldberg. “Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 40.6 (2011): 1199-1209. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review66.2 (April 2001): 159-183. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson (2004). “Psychosocial Adjustment and School Outcomes of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents.” Child Development 75.6 (November-December): 1886-1898. Cf. the American Psychological Association assessment: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx.
  54. Studies that had wider and more exhaustive studies that refute the flawed study by Mark Regnerus that the University of Texas at Austin supports, is at http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids.
  55. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/07/03/200-scholars-condemn-regnerus-study/. For a counterweight by a fictional “pediatric association”, read: http://familyscholars.org/2012/07/26/american-college-of-pediatricians-mis-uses-regnerus-study-in-amicus-brief/ that illustrates that ethics plays little role in some universities research or publication standards as with The University of Texas at Austin School of Sociology.  The publisher’s review standards are here: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-research/policies/peer-review-policy-on-social-science-research/
  56. The full letter is here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bombshell-letter-scores-of-ph-d-s-ask-for-retraction-of-regnerus-study/legal-issues/2012/06/29/42413 (I did marginal editing on obvious typographic errors):  

    Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research

    As researchers and scholars, many of whom with extensive experience in quantitative and qualitative research in family structures and child outcomes, we write to raise serious concerns about the most recent issue of Social Science Research and the set of papers focused on parenting by lesbians and gay men. In this regard, we have particular concern about Mark Regnerus’ paper entitled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.”LGBT parenting is a highly politicized topic. While the presence of a vibrant and controversial public debate should in no way censor scholarship, it should compel the academy to hold scholarship around that topic to our most rigorous standards. We are very concerned that these standards were not upheld in this issue or with this paper, given the apparently expedited process of publication and the decision to publish commentaries on the paper by scholars who were directly involved with the study and have limited experience in LGBT parenting research. We also have serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.

    In this letter, we detail the specific concerns that lead us to request that you publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

    We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just five weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, “Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2-3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon” and that “Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.” Clearly, Dr. Regnerus’ paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just two weeks after the revision was submitted.

    The five-week submission to acceptance length was much shorter than all of the other articles published in the July 2012 issue. The average period of review for papers published in this issue was more than a year and the median review time was more than ten months. As we note below, there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.

    We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. (Emphasis mine: A. Ide.)  A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement.

    We have substantial concerns about the merits of this paper and question whether it actually uses methods and instruments that answer the research questions posed in the paper. The author claims that the purpose of the analysis is to begin to address the question, “Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?” (p. 755). He creates several categories of “family type”, including “lesbian mother” and “gay father” as well as “divorced late,” “stepfamily,” and “single-parent.” But, as the author notes, for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a “same-sex relationship,” these categories were collapsed to boost sample size:

    That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father).

    By doing this, the author is unable to distinguish between the impact of having a parent who has had a continuous same-sex relationship from the impact of having same-sex parents who broke-up from the impact of living in a same-sex stepfamily from the impact of living with a single parent who may have dated a same-sex partner; each of these groups are included in a single “lesbian mother” or “gay father” group depending on the gender of the parent who had a same-sex relationship. Specifically, this paper fails to distinguish family structure and family instability. Thus, it fails to distinguish, for children whose parents ever had a same-sex relationship experience, the associations due to family structure from the associations due to family stability. However, he does attempt to distinguish family structure from family instability for the children of different-sex parents by identifying children who lived in an intact biological family. To make a group equivalent to the group he labels as having “lesbian” or “gay” parents, the author should have grouped all other respondents together and included those who lived in an intact biological family with those who ever experienced divorce, or whose parents ever had a different-sex romantic relationship. That seems absurd to family structure researchers, yet that type of grouping is exactly what he did with his “lesbian mother” and “gay father” groups.

    It should be noted that the analyses also fail to distinguish family structure from family stability for single mothers; this group included both continuously single mothers and those single mothers who had previously experienced a divorce.

    The paper employs an unusual method to measure the sexual orientation of the respondents’ parents. Even if the analyses had distinguished family stability from family structure, this paper and its accompanying study could not actually directly examine the impact of having a gay or lesbian parent on child outcomes because the interpretation of the measurement of parental sexual orientation is unclear. The author acknowledges as much when he states:

    It is, however, very possible that the same-sex romantic relationships about which the respondents report were not framed by those respondents as indicating their own (or their parent’s own) understanding of their parent as gay or lesbian or bisexual in sexual orientation. Indeed, this is more a study of the children of parents who have had (and in some cases, are still in) same-sex relationships than it is one of children whose parents have self-identified or are ‘‘out’’ as gay or lesbian or bisexual.

    Respondents were asked whether their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. The author then identifies mothers and fathers as “lesbian” or “gay” without any substantiation of parental sexual orientation either by respondents or their parents. (Emphasis mine: A. Ide) Given the author’s stated caveats, it is both inappropriate and factually incorrect for him to refer to these parents as “gay” or “lesbian” throughout the paper.

    We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer-review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate. The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

    Sociologists and Family Studies Scholars

    Silke Aisenbrey, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Yeshiva University
    Katherine R. Allen, PhD
    Professor of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    Eric Anderson, PhD
    Professor of Sports Medicine, University of Winchester
    Nielan Barnes, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, California State University, Long Beach
    Amanda K. Baumle, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Houston
    Debbie Becher
    Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Barnard College, Columbia University
    Mary Bernstein, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Connecticut
    Natalie Boero, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, San Jose State University
    H.M.W Bos, PhD
    Assitant Professor of Sociology, University of Amsterdam
    Lisa D Brush, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh
    Neal Caren
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    Mary Ann Clawson, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Wesleyan University
    Dan Clawson, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Philip Cohen, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland
    D’Lane Compton, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of New Orleans
    Shelley J. Correll, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
    David H. Demo, PhD
    Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
    Catherine Donovan PhD
    Professor of Social Relations, University of Sunderland
    Sinikka Elliott, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, North Carolina State University
    Louis Edgar Esparza, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles
    Laurie Essig, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Middlebury College
    Myra Marx Ferree, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Tina Fetner, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, McMaster University
    Jessica Fields, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology and Sexuality Studies, San Francisco State University
    Melissa M. Forbis, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Sociology, SUNY Stonybrook

    Gary J. Gates, PhD
    Williams Distinguished Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
    Naomi Gerstel, Phd (sic: PhD)
    Distinguished Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts
    Katherine Giuffre, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Colorado College
    Gloria González-López, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
    Theodore Greenstein, PhD
    Professor and Director of Graduate Programs for Sociology, North Carolina State University
    Jessica Halliday Hardie
    NICHD Postdoctoral Fellow, Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University
    Mark D. Hayward
    Professor of Sociology and Director, Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin
    Melanie Heath, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, McMaster University
    Amie Hess
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, Meredith College
    Melanie M. Hughes, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh
    Shamus Rahman Khan, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
    Michael Kimmel, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, SUNY
    Sherryl Klienman, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina
    Charles Q. Lau, PhD
    Survey Research Division, RTI international
    Jennifer Lee, PhD
    Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California – Irvine
    Jean Lynch, PhD
    Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology and Gerontology, Miami University
    Gill McCann, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
    Tey Meadow, PhD
    Cotsen Fellow, Princeton University
    Sarah O. Meadows, PhD
    Social Scientist, RAND Corporation
    Eleanor M. Miller, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
    Debra Minkoff, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Barnard College, Columbia University
    Beth Mintz, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
    Dawne Moon, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, Marquette University
    Mignon R. Moore, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles and Chair, Race, Gender & Class Section of the American Sociological Association
    Chandra Muller
    Professor of Sociology and Faculty Research Associate, Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin
    Nancy A. Naples, PhD
    Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies, University of Connecticut
    Peter M. Nardi, PhD
    Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College, The Claremont Colleges
    Alondra Nelson, PhD
    Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Columbia University
    Jodi O’Brien, PhD
    Professor and Chair of Sociology, Seattle University
    Katherine O’Donnell, PhD
    Senior Lecturer, School of Social Justice, University College Dublin
    Ramona Faith Oswald, PhD
    Professor of Family Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    Joseph M. Palacios, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, Georgetown University

    C.J. Pascoe, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, Colorado College
    Dudley L. Poston, Jr., PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M University
    Nicole C. Raeburn, PhD
    Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of San Francisco
    Kimberly Richman, PhD
    Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of San Francisco
    Barbara J. Risman, PhD
    Professor and Head of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago
    Sharmila Rudrappa, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
    Stephen T. Russel, PhD
    Professor of Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona
    Virginia Rutter, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Framingham State University
    Natalia Sarkisian
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Boston College
    Saskia Sassen, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
    Liana C. Sayer
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Ohio State University
    Michael Schwalbe
    Professor, Department of Sociology, North Carolina State University
    Michael Schwartz, PhD
    Chair and Professor of Sociology, Stony Brook University
    Christine R. Schwartz, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Pepper Schwartz, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
    Denise Benoit Scott, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, State University of New York at Geneseo
    Richard Sennett, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, New York University
    Eve Shapiro, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Westfield State University
    Eran Shor, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, McGill University
    Wendy Simonds
    Professor of Sociology, Georgia State University
    sarah sobieraj (sic: Sarah Sobieraj)
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Tufts University
    Judith Stacey, PhD
    Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
    Arlene Stein, PhD
    Department of Sociology, Rutgers University
    Verta Taylor, PhD
    Chair and Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
    Debra J Umberson, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
    Suzanna Danuta Walters, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University
    Jacqueline S. Weinstock, PhD
    Associate Professor of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Vermont
    Amy C. Wilkins, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado
    Cai Wilkinson, FHEA, PhD
    Lecturer in International Relations, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University
    Kristi Williams, PhD
    Associate Professor of Sociology, Ohio State University
    Kerry Woodward, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State University, Long Beach
    Nancy Lynn Baker, PhD, ABPP
    Diplomate in Forensic Psychology, Director, Forensic Concentration, Fielding Graduate University and Past President of the Society for the Psychology of Women
    Meg Barker, PhD
    Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Joel Becker, PhD
    Prof., Dept. of Psychology, UCLA and Assoc. Clinical Prof., UCLA, Medical School
    Steven Botticelli, PhD
    Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
    Petra M Boynton, PhD
    Social Psychologist, Lecturer in International Primary Health Research, UCL Medical School, University College London
    Mark Brennan-Ing, PhD
    Senior Research Scientist, AIDS Community Research Initiative of America
    Alice S. Carter, PhD
    Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Boston
    Carol A. Carver, PhD
    Licensed Psychologist and Past President of the Oregon Psychological Association
    Armand R. Cerbone, PhD, ABPP
    Board Certified Psychologist
    Kirstyn Y.S. Chun, PsyD
    Tenured Faculty, Counseling and Psychological Services, California State University, Long Beach
    Victoria Clarke, PhD
    Associate Professor in Sexuality Studies, Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, UK
    Gilbert W. Cole, PhD
    Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center Guest Lecturer, Union Theological Seminary
    M. Lynne Cooper, PhD
    Associate Editor, American Psychologist and Curators’ Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychological Science, University of Missouri – Columbia
    Howard H. Covitz, PhD, ABPP
    Board Certified Psychologist
    Dennis Debiak, PsyD
    Adjust Associate Professor, Institute for Graduate Clinical Psychology, Widener University and Secretary, Division of Psychoanalysis, American Psychological Association
    Rachel H. Farr, PhD
    Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Herb Gingold, PhD
    Co-Founder, Noir Institute
    Abbie E. Goldberg, PhD
    Associate Professor of Psychology, Clark University
    Carla Golden, PhD
    Professor of Psychology, Ithaca College
    Robert-Jay Green, PhD
    Executive Director, ROCKWAY INSTITUTE for LGBT Psychology & Public Policy Distinguished Professor, California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP) at Alliant International University
    Beverly Greene, PhD, ABPP
    Professor of Psychology, St. John’s University
    Harold D. Grotevant, PhD
    Rudd Family Foundation Chair in Psychology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Sarah A. Hayes-Skelton, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachussets (sic: Massachusetts, Boston
    Stacy S. Horn, PhD
    Associate Professor of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Univeristy (sic: University) of Illinois at Chicago
    Sharon G. Horne, PhD
    Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology, Department of Counseling and School Psychology, The University of Massachusetts Boston
    Harm J. Hospers
    Endowed chair Health Psychology and Homosexuality, Dean University College Maastricht, Dean Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

    Steven E. James, PhD
    Chair of Psychology & Clinical Mental Health Counseling Programs, Goddard College
    Darren Langdridge, PhD
    Head of Department of Psychology, The Open University, UK
    Chet Lesniak, PhD
    Core Faculty, Counseling Specialization, School of Psychology, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Walden University
    Heidi Levitt, PhD
    Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston
    William D. Lubart, PhD
    Faculty and Supervisor of Psychotherapy, The William Alanson White Institute
    Carien Lubbe-De Beer, PhD
    Senior Lecturer, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Pretoria
    Tasim Martin-Berg, CPsychol
    Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University
    James P. Maurino, MSW, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Human Development and Community and Human Services, SUNY-Empire State College
    Ximena E. Mejia, PhD, LMHC
    Director, Counseling Services, Parton Health and Counseling Center, Middlebury College
    Roger Mills-Koonce, PhD
    Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Lin S. Myers, PhD
    Professor of Psychology, California State University – Stanislaus
    Jo Oppenheimer, MA
    The Counseling Center for Women, Israel
    Susan M. Orsillo, PhD
    Professor, Department of Psychology, Suffolk University
    David Pantalone, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Psychology, Suffolk University
    Jeffrey T. Parsons, Ph.D
    Professor of Psychology and Public Health, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
    Maureen Perry-Jenkins, PhD
    Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Amherst
    Madelyn Petrow-Cohen, LCSW
    psychotherapist in private practice in NYC & Maplewood, NJ
    Todd R. Poch, PSYD, MALD, BCFM
    Assistant Professor in Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology
    Scott D. Pytluk, PhD
    Professor, Illinois School of Professional Psychology, Argosy University, Chicago
    Damien W. Riggs
    Editor, Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, Senior Lecturer in Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, Australia
    Lizabeth Roemer, PhD
    Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Boston
    Ritch C. Savin-Williams
    Professor, Developmental Psychology and Director, Sex and Gender Lab, Cornell University
    J. Greg Serpa, PhD
    Clinical Psychologist, Department of Veterans Affairs and Assistant Clinical Professor, UCLA Department of Psychology
    Louise Bordeaux Silverstein, PhD
    Professor of Psychology, Yeshiva University
    Bonnie R. Strickland, PhD, ABPP
    Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts
    Karen Suyemoto, PhD
    Associate Professor, Psychology and Asian American Studies, University of Massachusetts – Boston
    Lance P. Swenson, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, Suffolk University
    Fiona Tasker, PhD
    Department of Psychological Sciences, Birbeck University of London
    Marcus C. Tye, Ph.D
    Professor of Psychology, Dowling College
    Richard G. Wight, PhD
    Associate Researcher, UCLA School of Public Health

    Other Scholars

    Paula Amato, MD
    Associate Professor, Oregon Health and Science University and Board Member, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
    Ellen Ann Andersen, PhD
    Associate Professor of Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies University of Vermont
    Mary Barber, MD
    Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health
    Judith Bradford, PhD
    Co-Chair, The Fenway Institute and Director, Center for Population Research in LGBT Health
    Robert P Cabaj, MD
    Associate Clinical Professor in Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco
    Ryan M. Combs, PhD
    Research Associate, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
    Christopher Conti, MD
    Assistant Clinical Professor, New York University Medical Center
    Russel W. Dalton, EdD
    Associate Professor of Religious Education, Brite Divinity School Texas Christian University
    John D’Emilio, PhD
    Professor of History, Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago
    Anne Douglass, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human Development, University of Massachusetts – Boston
    Jack Drescher, MD
    Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, New York Medical College
    Oliva M. Espin, PhD
    Professor Emerita, Department of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
    Nanette Gartrell, MD
    Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
    Patti Geier, LCSW
    Alan Gilbert
    John Evans Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.
    Ann P. Haas, PhD
    Senior Project Specialist, American Founcation (sic: Foundation) for Suicide Prevention and Professor (ret.) Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, CUNY
    Ellen Haller, PhD
    Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco
    Nicole Heilbron, PhD
    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine
    Tonda Hughes, PhD, RN, FAAN
    Professor and Head of Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago
    Daniel Hurewitz, PhD
    Assistant Professor, History Department, Hunter College, CUNY
    Jesse Joad, MD, MS
    Professor Emerita, Pediatrics, University of California – Davis and Vice President for Education, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
    Debra Kaysen, Ph.D
    Associate Professor of Psychiatry, University of Washington
    Sang Hea Kil, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Justice Studies, San Jose State University
    Martha Kirkpatrick, MD
    Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, UCLA

    Holning Lau, JD
    Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Arlene Istar Lev, LCSW
    School of Social Welfare, SUNY Albany
    Lisa W. Loutzenheiser, PhD
    Associate Professor of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia
    Michael F. Lovenheim, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University
    Catherine A. Lugg, PhD
    Professor of Education, Rutgers University
    Gerald P. Mallon, DSW
    Julia Lathrop Professor of Child Welfare, Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
    Laura Mamo, PhD
    Associate Professor of Health Education, San Francisco State University
    Sean G. Massey
    Associate Professor, Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program Binghamton University
    Kenneth J. Meier, PhD
    Charles H. Gregory Chair in Liberal Arts, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University
    Stephen O. Murray
    El Instituto Obregón, San Francisco, CA
    Douglas NeJaime, PhD
    Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
    Henry Ng, MD, MPH, FAAP, FACP
    Assistant Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Center for Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, MetroHealth Medical Center
    Julie Novkov, PhD
    Chair, Department of Political Science, Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies, University at Albany, SUNY
    Loren A. Olson, MD
    Des Moines, IA
    Donald L. Opitz, PhD
    Assistant Professor, School for New Learning at DePaul University
    Katherine Parkin, PhD
    Associate Professor of History, Monmouth University
    Jessica Peet, PhD
    School of International Relations, University of Southern California
    Victoria Pollock
    Adjunct Faculty at the Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto.
    Jesus Ramirez-Valles PhD, MPH
    Professor of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago
    Nancy J. Ramsay, PhD
    Professor of Pastoral Theology and Pastoral Care, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University
    Paul J. Rinaldi, PhD
    Clinical Director, The Addiction Institute of New York, Department of Psychiatry, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center
    Barbara Rothberg, DSW, LCSW
    Esther Rothblum, PhD
    Professor of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
    Ralph Roughton, MD
    Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Emory University
    Leila J. Rupp, PhD
    Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
    Shawn Schulenberg, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Marshall University
    Ken Sherrill, PhD
    Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, CUNY
    Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
    Associate Professor, Departments of Psychiatry, Community & Preventive Medicine, and Family Medicine, University of Rochester
    Stephen V. Sprinkle, PhD
    Director of Field Education and Supervised Ministry, and Professor of Practical Theology Brite Divinity School

    William J. Spurlin, PhD, FHEA
    Professor of English, Brunel University London
    Carole S. Vance, PhD, MPH
    Assoc. Clinical Professor, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
    Angelia R. Wilson, PhD
    Politics Discipline, University of Manchester, UK.

  57. http://www.autostraddle.com/regnerus-family-structure-study-wasnt-about-same-sex-parents-after-all-148885/.
  58. Creswell, John W. (2009).  Research Design:  Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA, USA: SAGE; Woodside, Arch G. (2010). Case Study Research: Theory, Methods, Practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Krueger, Richard A.; Casey, Mary Ann. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE; Buchanan, Elizabeth A. (2004). Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies. Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Pub.
  59. http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm on the protection of human subjects, and for the role of education in research and learning, read: http://cme.nci.nih.gov. and http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html.
  60. Beneficentia does appear in Middle English before 1425.
  61. Wear, Stephen (1998). Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Clinician Beneficence Within Health Care. Washington, DC, USA: Georgetown University Press. Frankel Paul, Ellen (1987). Beneficence, Philanthropy, and the Public Good. Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell for the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University. cp.  http://dissertation.laerd.com/principles-of-research-ethics.php#second.
  62. Struening, Elmer L.; Guttentag, Marcia. (1975). Beverly Hills, CA, USA: SAGE Publications. Gibaldi, Joseph (2009). MLA Handbooks for Writers of Research Papers. New York, NY, USA: Modern Language Association of America.
  63. Cf. Wilson, Kenneth M. (1965). Of Time and the Doctorate: Report of an Inquiry into the Duration of Doctoral Study. Atlanta, GA, USA: Southern Regional Education Board.
  64. Strauss, Anselm L.; Corbin, Juliet M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA, USA: SAGE Publications. Handy, Rollo; Harwood, E C; Dewey, John; Ratner, Joseph. (1973?). Useful Procedures of Inquiry. Great Barrington, MA, USA: Behavioral Research Council.
  65. Glen, Evelyn Nakano (2010). Forced to Care: Coercion and Caregiving in America. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.  Howson, Richard; Smith, Kylie (2008). Hegemony: Studies in Consensus and Coercion. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.  Andrees, Beate; Belser, Patrick (2009). Forced Labor: Coercion and Exploitation in the Private Economy. Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  66. Mody, Lona; Miller, Douglas K.; McGloin, Joanne M.; Freeman, Marcie; Marcantonio, Edward R.; Magaziner, Jay; Studenski, Stephanie (2008-2012). Recruitment and Retention of Older Adults in Aging Research. (Oxford, UK): Blackwell Publishing.
  67. Stefan Laséen; Lars E O Svensson; National Bureau of Economic Research (2009). Anticipated alternative instrument-rate paths in policy simulations. Cambridge, MA, USA:  National Bureau of Economic Research.
  68. Cf. McHughen, Alan (2000). Pandora’s Picnic Basket: the Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  National Academies Press (2005). Expanding Access to Research Data: Reconcilig Risks and Opportunities. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
  69. Stephen A Merrill; Anne-Marie Mazza; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation (2006). Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.  Marilyn J Field; Richard E Behrman; Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children. (2004). Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press. William F Hyde; David H Newman; Barry J Seldon (1992). The Economic Benefits of Forestry Research. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State University Press.
  70. Riker, John H. (1997). Ethics and the Discovery of the Unconscious. Albany, NY, USA: State University Press of New York. Zimmer, Carl (2004). Soul Made Flesh: the Discovery of the Brain—and How It Changed the World. New York, NY, USA: Free Press. On inclusion in mainstream classes and advancement in social learning, consider: Jones, Alanna (2012). Ganz verschieden…und doch ein Team: 100 Spiele für soziales Lernen in Regel-und Inklusionsklassen. Mülheim an der Ruhr: Verlag an der Ruhr. On the psychology of personal development, read: Grof, Stanislav; Couturiau (1989). Les Nounvelles dimensions de la conscience. (Mónaco): Editions du Rocher.
  71. Williams-Jones, Bryn; Smith, Elise (n.d.). L’éthique de la valorization des bases de données et des banques de matériel créées à des fins de rechere: une étude empirique et normative. Unpublished dissertation: l’Université de Montréal (Canada). Cp. Duncan, George T.; Elliot, Mark; Salazar-González, Juan-José (2011). Statistical Confidentiality: Principles and Practice. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
  72. http://dissertation.laerd.com/research-strategy-and-research-ethics.php.
  73. Salkind, Neil J. (2012). 100 Questions (and Answers) about Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE.
  74. Haney, Craig (1976). “The Play’s The Thing: Methodological Notes on Social Simulations,” p.189 in Patricia Golden, M. Patricia (ed.), The Research Experience. Itasca, IL, USA: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
  75. Tanur, Judith M.; Social Science Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Cognition (1992). Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys. New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences.(2003).  Sharing Publication-related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
  76. Mark Regnerus continues the outdated, disproven concept and psychological errors on the family, as with his guest editorials in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/24/are-family-values-outdated/family-values-benefit-children, and elsewhere; cp. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/24/are-family-values-outdated/the-myth-of-the-traditional-family as a counterweight; cf. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/24/are-family-values-outdated/the-definition-of-marriage-bends-toward-justice.
  77. Meltzoff, Julian (1998). Critical Thinking about Research: Psychology and Related Fields. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
  78. Petterson, Camilla; Lindén-Boström, Margareta; Eriksson, Charli. (2009). “Reasons for Non-participation in a Parental Program Concerning Underage Drinking: A Mixed-method Study”. BioDed Central.
  79. Sales, Bruce D.; Folkman, Susan (2000). Ethics in Research with Human Participants.  Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.
  80. Ellickson, Phyllis L.; Hawes, Jennifer A; Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.; Rand Corporation (1989). An Assessment of Active versus Passive Methods for Obtaining Parental Consent. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
  81. A critical focus on defamation and related improper uses of research are at: Kesper-Biermann, Sylvia; Ludwig, Ulrike; Ortmann, Alexandra (2011). Ehre und Recht: Ehrkonzepete, Ehrverletzungen und Ehrverteidigungen vom späten Mittelalter bis zur Moderne. Magdeburg, Deutschland: Meine Verlag.
  82. Chanson, Hubert (2007). “Research Quality, Publications and Impact in Civil Engineering into the 21st Century. Publish or Perish, Commercial versus Open Access, Internet versus Libraries?”. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 34 (8): 946–951. doi:10.1169/L07-027. AIAA (2007). “Publication Ethical Standards: Guidelines and Procedures”. AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) Journal  45 (8): 1794. doi:10.2514/1.32639. SHiPS (Sociology, History and Philosophy of Science): http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/research.htm; cp. Advancing Science, Serving Society (AAAS). http://www.aaas.org/cspsp/dser/thematic_areas/life/.

3 comments to Psychology, Philosophy, Publication, and Ethical Research Guidelines in all Fields of Study: Preparation for Writing an Original, Quality Thesis

  • Cesar Cordova Oblitas  says:

    I totally agree with you, Dr. Ide. The problem today, for many students and some universities: in other words, the vast majority, there is no requirement for an exhaustive investigation of the subject area. Most students believe that copying a part of the subject matter under investigation is just that: copying, a quaint word for plagiarism, without any attribution. Unfortunately this makes the writings of some researchers weak and is often seen in the universities as “acceptable”–but neither noteworthy nor a document that makes no contribution to the field of study the researcher allegedly focused on.

    As mentioned at the start, I agree with your article, but we must not be in haste or too hard in criticizing newbies or beginners. Serious scholars, like you, must give them the incentive to start in the world of research by encouraging critical and significant reading that is more than a few random volumes; they will give you a clear idea of ​​a topic and may provide better with your guidance, and, hopefully, it will not be the last work of a initiant researcher (or on the first argument) in hopes that the paper becomes a “best seller”, but can lead to one that is acclaimed, published by a reputable firm, and lead to recognition and some financial remuneration–a goal that we seek here in the Third World, leading to recognizition both in a Latin country as well as the world, as we produce not only good but stellar research and gifted compositions.

    I will keep reading your articles, and thank you for your superior contributions to knowledge. I hope your next composition appears soon.

    • Arthur Frederick Ide  says:

      Thank you for your comment. I agree with you. I was proud of the first thesis I wrote in the early 1960s on the Petrine Doctrine (Papal primacy, supremacy, and infallibility–none of which is true, has biblical foundation or historical accuracy, as there was no pope before the second century in Rome, and no pope (save for those from Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch were present at the Emperor Constantine I’s politically called Council of Nicaea). Today I am ashamed that I wrote it as it has numerous errors in fact and cannot be justified based on early documents–many of which the Emperor had minions burn before his imperial throne as he called his the “universal [catholic] church”–as I took the writings of those in the second century (such as Ireanus of Lyons, or worse: Justin Martyr–who plagiarized, redacted and transmogrified older documents, leading many to believe that which did not exist.

      Today, I still make errors, but I try to discover them, correct them, and offer full references in the original languages for each statement before I publish. Unfortunately, many students merely copy the poor translation of others, and do not think for themselves, an act that would have won the applause of Plotinus and other indiscriminate apologists.

      The first thesis should be seen only as a beginning toward greater investigative research and publication, with each individual continuously working to improve his/her contribution and aid others. Even my last dissertation falls into this category and I continue to research and write to clean up anything that is wrong–but no one can define what is correct with marginal knowledge. It is best to read, read, read, research, research, research and write, write, and write and neither be ashamed or intimidated to admit an error or the fact that more investigation is necessary and required of those who seek truth.

  • Liza  says:

    For so many learning institutions, students are buying degrees instead of earning them. Take a look at the athletic departments and we see that sports and the money it draws in for the schools is more important than each player’s education. While there are many, many good teachers and professors who care and teach well, a vast majority of colleges, universities, and online universities are degree mills.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.