Ethics Standards of the Argentine Physics Association
General Considerations:
All physicists, whether or not they are members of the AFA, are part of the scientific community and as such share responsibilities in the task of modernizing society by using their performance as researchers. These responsibilities manifest themselves at various levels, both institutional and personal. In this context, the most elementary conception of ethics refers to:
1) The acceptance of responsibilities in the exercise of research tasks and in the administration of resources for scientific research.
2) The recognition of the existence of potential conflicts of interest in the exercise of these tasks.
As in any other activity, personal honesty is an essential element in the work of a physicist and in the relations of a physicist with other physicists and with the environment in general. Personal dishonesty seriously compromises the advancement of the discipline and harms the relationship between physicists. The manifest or concealed presence of dishonest individuals, at any instance of scientific work, seriously compromises the activity as a whole and, as such, must be repudiated by the community.
Thus, the physicist must be aware of their responsibility for the applications and uses of the knowledge acquired. The social responsibility of physicists is an essential ethical aspect of their activity. The AFA suggests the realization of a voluntary oath of an ethical nature in the university centers and scientific institutions of the country[1].
It is the responsibility of the AFA to recommend to its members the observance of elementary ethical standards. The same attitude has been assumed by other societies of physicists, which already have their own codes of ethics.
The AFA considers that the following standards are among the minimum possible in our environment:
a.1) Any form of dishonesty in research work constitutes an undesirable deviation from the expected behavior of a physicist. Concrete examples of dishonesty are:
plagiarism and falsification of results
automatic co-authorship in works in which there has naturally been no collaboration.
multiple submission of identical and/or slightly varied works.
delay and/or appropriation of results in the evaluation of the work of other researchers.
a.2) Any conscious participation in the development, improvement, and manufacture of indiscriminate weapons of destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, among others, is considered a violation of fundamental ethical principles.
b.1) The participation of physicists in evaluation committees of other physicists and research projects must be considered a necessary activity and, as such, must be exercised with total responsibility. It is essential that evaluators manifest the existence of possible conflicts of interest that may alter the outcome of the evaluations. The elaboration of evaluations under conditions of manifest friendship or enmity, forms of favoritism based on the evaluator's proximity to the researcher or the evaluated project, and the elimination or omission of background during an evaluation distort the evaluation processes and seriously harm the development of the discipline.
b.2) The handling of information obtained during an evaluation for one's own purposes by the evaluators constitutes a form of dishonesty.
b.3) The violation of confidentiality in evaluation processes, through the disclosure of evaluation instances before the final resolution, undermines the credibility and transparency of the evaluation process.
c.1) The use of leadership positions in science for one's own benefit or that of groups with interests related to the holder of the position is a serious breach of a physicist's ethics.
c.2) Taking measures that, while regularly subject to evaluation standards, are irregularly formulated in a way that benefits or harms individuals or research groups is reprehensible, as it institutionalizes arbitrariness and constitutes a form of corruption.
Implementation:
For the implementation of these ethical standards, the following is recommended:
[1] The proposed text, already adopted by some academic institutions in the country, is as follows: "I swear to work for a better world, in which science and technology are used in a socially responsible manner. I will not use my education for any purpose that causes harm to human beings or the environment, and before acting, I will consider the ethical implications of my work. I take this oath because I accept that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace."
Introduction
The rules of professional conduct for members of the physics community in Brazil must be based on the principle of personal and professional honesty. The physics community in Brazil is part of the worldwide physics community, and it is natural that rules of professional conduct in different nations are similar. The following presented standards are mainly based on the documents American Physical Society Ethics and Values Statements, Normas de Ética de laAsociación Física Argentina, Towards a Universal Ethical Oath for Scientists (UNESCO, 2003) andGuidelines forResearch Ethics in Science and Ttechnology (NENT, Norway, 2005).
As in any other activity, personal honesty is essential to the work of the physicist and in their relations with other physicists and with society. The manifest or concealed presence of dishonest people, at any stage of scientific work, compromises the activity in its entirety and must be repudiated by scientific societies and their members. However, it is necessary to recognize that an unintentional error can always occur in scientific work. It is not unethical to be wrong, as long as the errors are promptly recognized as such and corrected when pointed out.
The following are recommended standards of conduct for the physicist and the physics laboratory technician in their professional work.
Deliberate errors and plagiarism
Among the most serious offenses that a physicist can commit in a scientific article are the introduction of false results and plagiarism. False results are those introduced by the fictitious elaboration of data, or the conscious omission of existing data, with the purpose of proving or disproving theories and/or experiments. Plagiarism, in its easiest form to discover, consists of the publication, under the name of the plagiarizing physicist, of work or parts of work previously published by another. Plagiarism can also take the form of exploiting an idea that has been revealed to them, without pointing out the source. Many ideas are discovered simultaneously, and this is not plagiarism, but it is recommended that one of the authors promptly acknowledge the priority of the other when it is pointed out that this is the case. The acknowledgment of research results from others used in the published article is always necessary.
Clarity in the exposition of theoretical and experimental foundations
The theoretical and experimental foundations, as well as the methods and techniques used in a published work, must be clearly stated to allow their repetition by other scientists or reviewers. Some exceptions are admitted in cases where it is necessary to preserve privacy for patent protection or similar reasons. The methods, techniques, and tables of data and results must be kept available, for a reasonable time, in a way that allows verification by other scientists and reviewers. Furthermore, it is recommended to avoid the multiplication of publications that do not add knowledge. The authors of articles must be aware that it is unethical to publish scientific results that are practically identical in different journals.
Authorship of articles
All those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, and interpretation of the research should be given the opportunity to be listed as authors. Authorship should be limited to these; no other name should be included among the authors for the purpose of enriching curricula. Other people, researchers or technicians who have in some way contributed to the work should be listed in an acknowledgments section. The head of the laboratory or the director of the institution who has not contributed directly to the conception, execution, and interpretation phases of the work should not demand, or even suggest, that their name appear among the authors of a research carried out in their laboratory or institute. Funding sources should not be hidden and should always be clearly cited.
Responsibility for articles
All co-authors should be given the opportunity to review the complete article before its submission for publication. While one or some authors should be responsible for the complete article, collaborators who have made limited and specific contributions assume responsibility only for those contributions. However, everyone must take responsibility for their contributions and agree to make the necessary corrections if flaws are pointed out in the article.
Peer review
Peer review is an essential process for scientific and academic activities and therefore requires that it be done judiciously and with intellectual honesty. In reviews, as a precaution to avoid conflicts of interest, the reviewer should avoid articles that deal with a topic coinciding with their ongoing work and whose knowledge could benefit them; above all, they should not delay a review to publish their results before the reviewed article. When participating in judging panels for academic or public positions in general, as well as evaluation committees of their peers and/or research projects, the physicist should not benefit candidates or projects from their own research group or department, or close relatives, to the detriment of another better candidate or research project. Similarly, the practice of lobbying for candidates under the same previous conditions should be avoided. This attitude, in addition to being an ethical requirement, is essential for the progress of science in the country.
Conflicts of interest
Many scientific activities have proven to be potential sources of conflicts of interest. Any professional relationship with companies or individuals that could result in a conflict of interest with activity in public office must be clearly disclosed and examined from this point of view. If the examination of the situation shows a conflict, the relationship should be terminated or the conflict otherwise nullified.
Defense of Society and the Environment
It is a recognized fact that the application of physics has a remarkable impact on the environment, on life on Earth, and on human society. The physicist should make efforts to ensure that their work results in less social inequality, greater environmental stability, and safety for human life. Research should create mutual security for individuals, groups, and nations and should not violate international conventions aimed at ensuring peace. The lack of scientific knowledge about the possible consequences of research should not be used as justification for activity that could have serious consequences for the environment or for humanity: it is the ethical duty of the physicist to analyze to the best of their ability the risks involved. Activities that endanger human beings and possibly life on Earth should be avoided by them; if activities of this nature come to their knowledge, they should, if possible, be publicly denounced.
Teaching and dissemination of science
Scientific knowledge should not be the privilege of a few, and it is important for society, and in particular for Brazil, that it has honest, clear, and broad dissemination. It is the obligation of the physicist to contribute to this, promoting and fostering the diffusion of science. It is also the obligation of the physicist, as an educator, to transmit to their students competent and honest teaching, based on the ethical values incorporated in these standards of conduct. A positive attitude of reflection on the ethical problems that may arise from their professional work should be encouraged in their students.