Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9735-0 LETTER
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human Factors Offer Insights to Develop a Just Culture Tarcisio Abreu Saurin1
Received: 10 September 2015 / Accepted: 23 November 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract While ethics in publishing has been increasingly debated, there seems to be a lack of a theoretical framework for making sense of existing rules of behavior as well as for designing, managing and enforcing such rules. This letter argues that systems-oriented disciplines, such as complexity science and human factors, offer insights into new ways of dealing with ethics in publishing. Some examples of insights are presented. Also, a call is made for empirical studies that unveil the context and details of both retracted papers and the process of writing and publishing academic papers. This is expected to shed light on the complexity of the publication system as well as to support the development of a just culture, in which all participants are accountable. Keywords culture
Ethics in publishing Complexity science Human factors Just
Introduction Academic research, including the task of publishing its findings, takes place in a highly complex socio-technical system (CSS), which involves several dynamically interacting agents (e.g. authors, publishers, reviewers, regulators, funding agencies, subjects of the research, and Universities, among others). In turn, these agents may have different goals, resources, constraints, and values. As such, the publication system is prone to exhibit typical behaviors of CSSs, such as emergence (Cilliers 1998). Emergence refers to system’s outcomes that are unpredictable since they & Tarcisio Abreu Saurin [email protected]; [email protected] 1
DEPROT/UFRGS (Industrial Engineering and Transportation Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul), Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5. andar, Porto Alegre, RS CEP 90035-190, Brazil
123
T. A. Saurin
arise from the interactions between agents, which make decisions based on what makes sense to them from a local perspective, without being aware of the wider impacts of their actions (Dekker 2011). Both the research process itself and a number of cases of misconduct1 in publishing can be described as emergent phenomena arising from interactions between agents involved in the broader research and publication system. This view is in contrast with linear thinking (Dekker 2006), which would assume that misconduct arises essentially from dishonest agents—e.g. bad outcomes, such as redundant publication, necessarily have bad causes, such as dishonest authors who do not resist pressures from the ‘‘publish or perish’’ culture. Of course, recognizing the complexity of the publishing system implies the need for using analytical and governance guidelines compatible with complexity science. Such guidelines are presented by a number of studies (e.g. Dekker 2011; Snowden and Boone 2007; Skyttner 2005), which were grouped by Saurin et al. (2013) into six categories: (1) give visibility to processes and outcomes, (2) anticipate and monitor the impact of small changes, (3) encourage diversity of perspectives when making decisions, (4) design slack, (5) monitor and understand the gap between prescription and practice, and (6) create an environment that supports resilience. A meta-guideline (Clegg 2000) states that the other guidelines are contingent, which means that these can be counter-productive under certain circumstances. The objective of this letter is to illustrate the value of using systems-oriented approaches as a lens to investigate and design innovative strategies related to ethics in publishing.
Systems Thinking, Human Factors, and Ethics in Publishing System thinking (ST) is characterized by analyzing interconnections and causal links that are distant in space and time from actions of agents; thus it values holism and interactions, moving away from reductionism (Skyttner 2005). These characteristics are shared by a number of disciplines and methods usually associated with ST—e.g. system dynamics (Forrester 1973), complexity science (Cilliers 1998), and soft systems methodology (Checkland 1999). This letter emphasizes how ethics in publishing can benefit from advances in Human Factors (HF) applied to CSSs—this focus reflects the author’s bias, since he has carried out research in this area (e.g. Righi and Saurin 2015). Therefore, it is worth stressing that other systems-oriented disciplines could be as insightful for ethics in publishing as HF and complexity. As to HF, it is the ‘‘scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance’’ (IEA 2015). A major field within HF, 1
Misconduct in publishing is used in this paper as a broad concept referring to a number of ethical contraventions (e.g. plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, etc.) related to submitted and published scientific papers.
123
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human…
which may be insightful for ethics in publishing, is concerned with the modelling and prevention of workplace accidents. This requires one is ready to accept that some cases of misconduct may be interpreted as accidents, rather than simply violations of ‘‘bad apples’’ (Dekker 2006) in an otherwise perfect system. Other learning opportunities may arise from the substantial body of knowledge related to the design and management of rules in CSSs—e.g. guidelines for selecting the most appropriate type of rule for each situation, and the management of tradeoffs and double binds faced by agents when dealing with rules (e.g. Hale and Borys 2013).
Some Examples of Insights Arising from HF and Complexity Science Examples are presented in this section, based on the previously mentioned guidelines for managing CSSs. While transparency— guideline (1)—is widely accepted as a key for superior operational performance in a number of settings, when it comes to ethics in publishing it can have a downside. Bernstein (2012) also reported detrimental effects of transparency in a manufacturing environment where agents did not trust each other. For instance, Moustafa (2015) suggests blind submission (without disclosing the author’s identity and contact details) as a possible solution to reduce rejection biases at the editorial levels and the first stage of paper assessment. This recommendation illustrates the tricky nature of complexity, and the contingent nature of the guidelines. Indeed, editors might be biased due to a number of personal and organizational interactions (e.g. past experiences with authors from some countries or institutions) that cannot be taken for granted—the past of a CSS is co-responsible for its present behavior (Cilliers 1998). By contrast, linear thinking would imply editors are immune to context and thus capable of acting as perfectly rational decision-makers. Guideline (2), which is concerned with unintended consequences, implies shortterm fixes focused on finding broken parts (e.g. agents who misbehaved) may trigger interactions that expose the system to new vulnerabilities (Dekker 2011). For instance, unfair retractions may be a traumatizing experience especially for young researchers, and legal actions by authors against publishers might contribute to opaque retraction notices, which in turn do not help to educate the research community. As to guideline (3), it indicates that diversity of perspectives is an asset and source of innovation (Page 2007). The application of this guideline encourages the understanding of events, such as retracted papers, from the view of those who violated rules that in hindsight were obvious. This could also prevent the dehumanization of those who violated (perhaps unclear) rules, who otherwise may be easily regarded as simple electronic impulses flowing through cyberspace. An example related to guideline (4) which is concerned with slack, is the check carried out by many publishers in order to detect plagiarism and self-plagiarism after the submission—i.e. if the authors do not do this check, the publisher does as a redundancy. Of course, guidelines (4), and (3), also apply when the decision to retract a paper is made by a team rather than only by the editor—ideally this team
123
T. A. Saurin
should have some diversity, such as in terms of gender, nationality, and technical background.
The Need for Developing a Just Culture The use of ST may unveil a number of untold stories and interactions, which could be informative to re-design the system and develop a just culture. Dekker (2007, p. 24) presents the key characteristics of a just culture, in the context of safety. These are: people feel comfortable to bring out information about what should be improved to levels or groups that can do something about it; an account of failure is given that contributes to learning and improvement; wanting everything in the open, but not tolerating everything; trust is built among agents. It is questionable whether these characteristics exist in the current research and publishing systems, especially those related to trust and transparency. Indeed, it is ironic that important sources for public dissemination of details of retractions are not scientific journals, but rather the media in general and blogs such as Retraction Watch, which is often cited as a secondary source by scientific papers (e.g. Vasconcelos and Roig 2014). Another feature of a just culture, which could have a role in ethics in publishing, is the concern with second victims. In the context of safety, ‘‘second victims are practitioners who are involved in an incident that kills or injures someone else and for which they feel personally responsible’’ (Dekker 2013). In the context of ethics in publishing, a second victim could be, for instance, a co-author responsible for actions that resulted in a retracted paper. The reputation damage caused to the other authors could be a trigger for posttraumatic stress disorders and other health problems. Moreover, neglecting second victims makes it difficult to learn from them about the context that led to the undesired outcome (Dekker 2013).
Barriers for the Implementation of System-Oriented Rules Towards a Just Culture There might be major barriers for putting forward a just culture and a systems agenda for ethics in publishing. Two of them are listed below: 1.
There is a huge power imbalance between authors and editors/publishers. This imbalance is likely to be even wider for researchers from developing countries, which are underrepresented in international scientific associations and editorial boards of top journals (Moustafa 2015; Sumathipala et al. 2004)—therefore, perspectives from developing countries, which could account for the context of those regions, tend to be neglected. Furthermore, whatever the origin of authors is, the said imbalance is a hindrance since ordinary authors have few mechanisms for influencing the design of rules and questioning decisions on misconduct made by editors and publishers. While some researchers may have the resources to go to court, this is not a realistic option for the vast majority of authors. In fact, while ethical codes are actively developed for authors similar
123
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human…
2.
strict rules are not usually enforced on editors, reviewers and publishers (Kotchoubey et al. 2015). As an illustration of the focus on authors as the source of misconduct, the role of ombudsman is rare in scientific journals. As a result of the previous barrier, knowledge about the details of cases of misconduct in publishing is very scarce. A linear and opaque system of handling misconduct can reinforce a blame culture and build distrust between agents. Even more, such approach may reinforce the issue of ethics in publishing as a taboo (Roberts 2009) outside of the circle of experts in this topic.
Therefore, there is a need for qualitative empirical studies focused on the investigation of context and details of both retracted papers and the process of writing and publishing papers. In fact, complexity science states that the same sources of variability are present in both successful and unsuccessful outcomes (Hollnagel 2012). Thus, learning from misconduct in publishing should also occur from understanding the normal process of writing and publishing, instead of only from retractions.
Concluding Remarks The discipline of academic ethics could take advantage of the existing body of knowledge related to ST applied to the design of CSSs. For instance, this could avoid the repetition of mistakes made by organizations when dealing with workplace accidents, such as doing fixes directed to the individual (and often weaker) parts of the system. An excessive emphasis on rules that focus on the individual agent and more punishing, when associated with distrust between agents and lack of systemic changes may be a recipe for more and more emergent phenomena that will keep challenging participants of this system. Having said that, it is worth noting that ST has its own ethical implications and one of these is certainly that it must not be confounded with an excuse for avoiding accountability of all agents (not only authors). Last, but not least, one the first steps for applying the presented ideas could be the assessment of existing systems of ethics in publishing from the perspective of systems-oriented disciplines, such as the ones emphasized in this letter (i.e. complexity and HF). This could shed light on vulnerabilities, strengths, and set a basis for the development of a theoretical framework to guide further studies.
References Bernstein, E. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge. Clegg, C. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 463–477.
123
T. A. Saurin Dekker, S. (2006). The field guide to understanding human error. Burlington: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2007). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Burlington: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. London: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2013). Second victim: Error, guilt, trauma, and resilience. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Forrester, J. W. (1973). World dynamics. Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press. Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55, 207–221. Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM: The functional resonance analysis method—Modelling complex sociotechnical systems. Burlington: Ashgate. International Ergonomics Association (IEA). (2015). Definition and domains of ergonomics. http://www. iea.cc/whats/. Accessed July 13, 2015. Kotchoubey, B., Buetof, S., & Sitaram, R. (2015). Flagrant misconduct of reviewers and editor: A case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 829–835. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9583-3. Moustafa, K. (2015). Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 535–539. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7. Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Righi, A. W., & Saurin, T. A. (2015). Complex socio-technical systems: Characterization and management guidelines. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 19–30. Roberts, J. (2009). An authors’ guide to publication ethics: A review of emerging standards in biomedical journals. Headache, 49, 578–589. Saurin, T. A., Rooke, J., & Koskela, L. (2013). A complex systems theory perspective of lean production. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 5824–5838. Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory problems: Perspective-practice. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making: Wise executives tailor their approach to fit the complexity of the circumstances they face. Harvard Business Review, (November), 69–76. Sumathipala, A., Siribaddana, S., & Patel, V. (2004). Under-representation of developing countries in the research literature: Ethical issues arising from a survey of five leading medical journals. BMC Medical Ethics 5(5). doi:10.1186/1472-6939-5-5. Vasconcelos, S. M., & Roig, M. (2014). Prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science: Are authors and editors at the crossroads? Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-0149599-8.
123
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human Factors Offer Insights to Develop a Just Culture Tarcisio Abreu Saurin1
Received: 10 September 2015 / Accepted: 23 November 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract While ethics in publishing has been increasingly debated, there seems to be a lack of a theoretical framework for making sense of existing rules of behavior as well as for designing, managing and enforcing such rules. This letter argues that systems-oriented disciplines, such as complexity science and human factors, offer insights into new ways of dealing with ethics in publishing. Some examples of insights are presented. Also, a call is made for empirical studies that unveil the context and details of both retracted papers and the process of writing and publishing academic papers. This is expected to shed light on the complexity of the publication system as well as to support the development of a just culture, in which all participants are accountable. Keywords culture
Ethics in publishing Complexity science Human factors Just
Introduction Academic research, including the task of publishing its findings, takes place in a highly complex socio-technical system (CSS), which involves several dynamically interacting agents (e.g. authors, publishers, reviewers, regulators, funding agencies, subjects of the research, and Universities, among others). In turn, these agents may have different goals, resources, constraints, and values. As such, the publication system is prone to exhibit typical behaviors of CSSs, such as emergence (Cilliers 1998). Emergence refers to system’s outcomes that are unpredictable since they & Tarcisio Abreu Saurin [email protected]; [email protected] 1
DEPROT/UFRGS (Industrial Engineering and Transportation Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul), Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5. andar, Porto Alegre, RS CEP 90035-190, Brazil
123
T. A. Saurin
arise from the interactions between agents, which make decisions based on what makes sense to them from a local perspective, without being aware of the wider impacts of their actions (Dekker 2011). Both the research process itself and a number of cases of misconduct1 in publishing can be described as emergent phenomena arising from interactions between agents involved in the broader research and publication system. This view is in contrast with linear thinking (Dekker 2006), which would assume that misconduct arises essentially from dishonest agents—e.g. bad outcomes, such as redundant publication, necessarily have bad causes, such as dishonest authors who do not resist pressures from the ‘‘publish or perish’’ culture. Of course, recognizing the complexity of the publishing system implies the need for using analytical and governance guidelines compatible with complexity science. Such guidelines are presented by a number of studies (e.g. Dekker 2011; Snowden and Boone 2007; Skyttner 2005), which were grouped by Saurin et al. (2013) into six categories: (1) give visibility to processes and outcomes, (2) anticipate and monitor the impact of small changes, (3) encourage diversity of perspectives when making decisions, (4) design slack, (5) monitor and understand the gap between prescription and practice, and (6) create an environment that supports resilience. A meta-guideline (Clegg 2000) states that the other guidelines are contingent, which means that these can be counter-productive under certain circumstances. The objective of this letter is to illustrate the value of using systems-oriented approaches as a lens to investigate and design innovative strategies related to ethics in publishing.
Systems Thinking, Human Factors, and Ethics in Publishing System thinking (ST) is characterized by analyzing interconnections and causal links that are distant in space and time from actions of agents; thus it values holism and interactions, moving away from reductionism (Skyttner 2005). These characteristics are shared by a number of disciplines and methods usually associated with ST—e.g. system dynamics (Forrester 1973), complexity science (Cilliers 1998), and soft systems methodology (Checkland 1999). This letter emphasizes how ethics in publishing can benefit from advances in Human Factors (HF) applied to CSSs—this focus reflects the author’s bias, since he has carried out research in this area (e.g. Righi and Saurin 2015). Therefore, it is worth stressing that other systems-oriented disciplines could be as insightful for ethics in publishing as HF and complexity. As to HF, it is the ‘‘scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance’’ (IEA 2015). A major field within HF, 1
Misconduct in publishing is used in this paper as a broad concept referring to a number of ethical contraventions (e.g. plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, etc.) related to submitted and published scientific papers.
123
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human…
which may be insightful for ethics in publishing, is concerned with the modelling and prevention of workplace accidents. This requires one is ready to accept that some cases of misconduct may be interpreted as accidents, rather than simply violations of ‘‘bad apples’’ (Dekker 2006) in an otherwise perfect system. Other learning opportunities may arise from the substantial body of knowledge related to the design and management of rules in CSSs—e.g. guidelines for selecting the most appropriate type of rule for each situation, and the management of tradeoffs and double binds faced by agents when dealing with rules (e.g. Hale and Borys 2013).
Some Examples of Insights Arising from HF and Complexity Science Examples are presented in this section, based on the previously mentioned guidelines for managing CSSs. While transparency— guideline (1)—is widely accepted as a key for superior operational performance in a number of settings, when it comes to ethics in publishing it can have a downside. Bernstein (2012) also reported detrimental effects of transparency in a manufacturing environment where agents did not trust each other. For instance, Moustafa (2015) suggests blind submission (without disclosing the author’s identity and contact details) as a possible solution to reduce rejection biases at the editorial levels and the first stage of paper assessment. This recommendation illustrates the tricky nature of complexity, and the contingent nature of the guidelines. Indeed, editors might be biased due to a number of personal and organizational interactions (e.g. past experiences with authors from some countries or institutions) that cannot be taken for granted—the past of a CSS is co-responsible for its present behavior (Cilliers 1998). By contrast, linear thinking would imply editors are immune to context and thus capable of acting as perfectly rational decision-makers. Guideline (2), which is concerned with unintended consequences, implies shortterm fixes focused on finding broken parts (e.g. agents who misbehaved) may trigger interactions that expose the system to new vulnerabilities (Dekker 2011). For instance, unfair retractions may be a traumatizing experience especially for young researchers, and legal actions by authors against publishers might contribute to opaque retraction notices, which in turn do not help to educate the research community. As to guideline (3), it indicates that diversity of perspectives is an asset and source of innovation (Page 2007). The application of this guideline encourages the understanding of events, such as retracted papers, from the view of those who violated rules that in hindsight were obvious. This could also prevent the dehumanization of those who violated (perhaps unclear) rules, who otherwise may be easily regarded as simple electronic impulses flowing through cyberspace. An example related to guideline (4) which is concerned with slack, is the check carried out by many publishers in order to detect plagiarism and self-plagiarism after the submission—i.e. if the authors do not do this check, the publisher does as a redundancy. Of course, guidelines (4), and (3), also apply when the decision to retract a paper is made by a team rather than only by the editor—ideally this team
123
T. A. Saurin
should have some diversity, such as in terms of gender, nationality, and technical background.
The Need for Developing a Just Culture The use of ST may unveil a number of untold stories and interactions, which could be informative to re-design the system and develop a just culture. Dekker (2007, p. 24) presents the key characteristics of a just culture, in the context of safety. These are: people feel comfortable to bring out information about what should be improved to levels or groups that can do something about it; an account of failure is given that contributes to learning and improvement; wanting everything in the open, but not tolerating everything; trust is built among agents. It is questionable whether these characteristics exist in the current research and publishing systems, especially those related to trust and transparency. Indeed, it is ironic that important sources for public dissemination of details of retractions are not scientific journals, but rather the media in general and blogs such as Retraction Watch, which is often cited as a secondary source by scientific papers (e.g. Vasconcelos and Roig 2014). Another feature of a just culture, which could have a role in ethics in publishing, is the concern with second victims. In the context of safety, ‘‘second victims are practitioners who are involved in an incident that kills or injures someone else and for which they feel personally responsible’’ (Dekker 2013). In the context of ethics in publishing, a second victim could be, for instance, a co-author responsible for actions that resulted in a retracted paper. The reputation damage caused to the other authors could be a trigger for posttraumatic stress disorders and other health problems. Moreover, neglecting second victims makes it difficult to learn from them about the context that led to the undesired outcome (Dekker 2013).
Barriers for the Implementation of System-Oriented Rules Towards a Just Culture There might be major barriers for putting forward a just culture and a systems agenda for ethics in publishing. Two of them are listed below: 1.
There is a huge power imbalance between authors and editors/publishers. This imbalance is likely to be even wider for researchers from developing countries, which are underrepresented in international scientific associations and editorial boards of top journals (Moustafa 2015; Sumathipala et al. 2004)—therefore, perspectives from developing countries, which could account for the context of those regions, tend to be neglected. Furthermore, whatever the origin of authors is, the said imbalance is a hindrance since ordinary authors have few mechanisms for influencing the design of rules and questioning decisions on misconduct made by editors and publishers. While some researchers may have the resources to go to court, this is not a realistic option for the vast majority of authors. In fact, while ethical codes are actively developed for authors similar
123
Ethics in Publishing: Complexity Science and Human…
2.
strict rules are not usually enforced on editors, reviewers and publishers (Kotchoubey et al. 2015). As an illustration of the focus on authors as the source of misconduct, the role of ombudsman is rare in scientific journals. As a result of the previous barrier, knowledge about the details of cases of misconduct in publishing is very scarce. A linear and opaque system of handling misconduct can reinforce a blame culture and build distrust between agents. Even more, such approach may reinforce the issue of ethics in publishing as a taboo (Roberts 2009) outside of the circle of experts in this topic.
Therefore, there is a need for qualitative empirical studies focused on the investigation of context and details of both retracted papers and the process of writing and publishing papers. In fact, complexity science states that the same sources of variability are present in both successful and unsuccessful outcomes (Hollnagel 2012). Thus, learning from misconduct in publishing should also occur from understanding the normal process of writing and publishing, instead of only from retractions.
Concluding Remarks The discipline of academic ethics could take advantage of the existing body of knowledge related to ST applied to the design of CSSs. For instance, this could avoid the repetition of mistakes made by organizations when dealing with workplace accidents, such as doing fixes directed to the individual (and often weaker) parts of the system. An excessive emphasis on rules that focus on the individual agent and more punishing, when associated with distrust between agents and lack of systemic changes may be a recipe for more and more emergent phenomena that will keep challenging participants of this system. Having said that, it is worth noting that ST has its own ethical implications and one of these is certainly that it must not be confounded with an excuse for avoiding accountability of all agents (not only authors). Last, but not least, one the first steps for applying the presented ideas could be the assessment of existing systems of ethics in publishing from the perspective of systems-oriented disciplines, such as the ones emphasized in this letter (i.e. complexity and HF). This could shed light on vulnerabilities, strengths, and set a basis for the development of a theoretical framework to guide further studies.
References Bernstein, E. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge. Clegg, C. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 463–477.
123
T. A. Saurin Dekker, S. (2006). The field guide to understanding human error. Burlington: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2007). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Burlington: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. London: Ashgate. Dekker, S. (2013). Second victim: Error, guilt, trauma, and resilience. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Forrester, J. W. (1973). World dynamics. Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press. Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55, 207–221. Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM: The functional resonance analysis method—Modelling complex sociotechnical systems. Burlington: Ashgate. International Ergonomics Association (IEA). (2015). Definition and domains of ergonomics. http://www. iea.cc/whats/. Accessed July 13, 2015. Kotchoubey, B., Buetof, S., & Sitaram, R. (2015). Flagrant misconduct of reviewers and editor: A case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 829–835. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9583-3. Moustafa, K. (2015). Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 535–539. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7. Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Righi, A. W., & Saurin, T. A. (2015). Complex socio-technical systems: Characterization and management guidelines. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 19–30. Roberts, J. (2009). An authors’ guide to publication ethics: A review of emerging standards in biomedical journals. Headache, 49, 578–589. Saurin, T. A., Rooke, J., & Koskela, L. (2013). A complex systems theory perspective of lean production. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 5824–5838. Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory problems: Perspective-practice. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making: Wise executives tailor their approach to fit the complexity of the circumstances they face. Harvard Business Review, (November), 69–76. Sumathipala, A., Siribaddana, S., & Patel, V. (2004). Under-representation of developing countries in the research literature: Ethical issues arising from a survey of five leading medical journals. BMC Medical Ethics 5(5). doi:10.1186/1472-6939-5-5. Vasconcelos, S. M., & Roig, M. (2014). Prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science: Are authors and editors at the crossroads? Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-0149599-8.
123
