Introduction and Rationale
It is the mission of APS to advance physics by fostering a vibrant, inclusive, and global community dedicated to science and society. These Standards1 present ethical expectations for all members to follow. They fall into three categories: Publication of Scientific Research, Treatment of Colleagues, and Responsibility to the Profession. In each case, the Standards rest on APS Core Values, especially Integrity and Respect.
Integrity
Integrity is foundational to science. Simply put, physicists must tell the truth. Data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism corrupt the progress of science, thereby diminishing its value and damaging public trust. This document contains language from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure that the APS stance aligns with that of the larger scientific community.
Respect
Respect means that physicists must treat others well. Abuse of colleagues, students, or supervisees degrades the conditions for the honest interchange that leads to the best science. This document contains standards and explanations to illustrate specific actions that constitute abusive behavior.
Publication of Scientific Research
I. Research Results
Ethics Standard
The publication of research allows for the progress of physics and science in general. It is a societal good that should be done with the aim of maximizing the dissemination of research results.
Researchers should adhere to their governmental and institutional policies on the responsible conduct of research. For U.S. researchers, misconduct is defined by the U.S. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct to include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism:
- Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
- Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
- Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
In general, research misconduct occurs when there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community and the misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Members are expected to report research misconduct to the appropriate body (for example, institutions or journals).
Fabrication and falsification do not include honest errors in scientific practice or differences in opinion about interpretation. On the other hand, covering up or concealing misconduct, retaliation against reporters of misconduct, and malicious allegations of misconduct are all serious ethical violations.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Researchers are responsible for properly attributing the work of others and for following all legal mandates that affect publication.
- Research data and products (such as protocols, computer code, and study parameters) should be retained for a reasonable period in accordance with journal, funder, and legal mandates.
- Research results should be recorded and maintained in a form that allows subsequent use, analysis, review, and reproduction to the maximum extent possible. Exceptions may be appropriate in certain circumstances to preserve privacy, trade secrets, or national security.
- Researchers are responsible for raising any questions they may have about the provenance or integrity of data at any stage of the research or publication process according to their institutional policies.
- Authors are obliged to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works. Journals are responsible for correcting errors in published papers or retracting them, as appropriate. Institutions should report concerns about published research to the relevant journal.
- Research institutions have authority to establish policies for research misconduct. In the U.S., Federal research misconduct policy provides relevant guidance for purposes of Federal action.
II. Authorship
Ethics Standard
Authorship creates a record of attribution, establishes accountability and responsibility with respect to the work, and is key in establishing careers.
Authorship should be limited to, and should not exclude, those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution, interpretation, or writeup of the research study. Authors should be able to identify and attest to their specific contribution to the work. When submitting to a journal, all authors should be aware of and consent to the submission of the work.
Explanations and Recommendations
- All authors are accountable for their work and its presentation in a paper. The multidisciplinary nature of research may make this difficult, but early disclosure and discussion of individual contributions can avoid later conflict.
- To avoid disputes over attribution of authorship, it may be helpful to decide at the start of writing the paper who will be credited as authors and in what order, who will be acknowledged as contributors, and to validate the decisions with all members of the research team.
- All collaborations should establish processes for ensuring the accuracy and validity of reported results.
- Corresponding and presenting authors should be sure that all co-authors have approved the content of manuscripts and presentations.
- APS recognizes authorship agreements for large collaborations, so long as authorship is determined through a transparent process.
- Uncredited (ghost) and undeserved/purchased (guest/gift) authorship is a serious violation of ethical standards.
III. Redundant Publication
Ethics Standard
Redundant publication wastes the time and efforts of editors, referees, and readers. Such publications contain substantially duplicated content, such as wording and figures that are not properly referenced.
Authors should avoid artificially increasing the number of publications by fragmenting the publication of research reports. Special consideration may be given to conference proceedings and presentations that represent preliminary versions of the work.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Previous publication of an abstract or abbreviated presentation as part of a meeting does not usually preclude subsequent submission of a longer, more complete version for publication, but full disclosure of the existence of these materials should be included at the time of submission.
- If discovered before publication, previous publication is grounds for rejection, and possibly further consequences if it contradicts the journal’s policies on disclosing related work.
- If discovered after publication, the proper correcting action can range from a corrective note to retraction of the offending article. Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable with the permission of the copyright holder of the original article.
- Authors should disclose, at the time of submission, details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press.
- Simultaneous submissions of the same paper to multiple journals are not allowed.
- Preprint servers such as arXiv are a valuable means for sharing new work. Many journals do not consider the submission of a manuscript to a preprint server as redundant publication, but it is the responsibility of the author to follow the relevant journal policies. When the manuscript has been published in a refereed journal, a link to the final document should be added to the preprint.
IV. Plagiarism
Ethics Standard
Plagiarism is the presentation of others’ ideas, data, and writings, including research grant applications and presentation materials, as if they were one’s own. It also includes self-plagiarism, unacceptable levels of reuse of one’s own work without attribution, even when summarizing past results or background material.
Authors are expected to respect intellectual property and copyright by clearly indicating quotations and the sources of ideas. Publishing or submitting plagiarized material for publication is a serious ethical breach.
Explanations and Recommendations
- If one’s own text or graphic is reused in a publication or widely disseminated document, it should be presented as a quoted passage with attribution to the earlier work.
- Reuse of a small amount of text for limited purposes, such as a technical description of theoretical or experimental methods, is acceptable if the first instance of its publication is cited.
- Reuse of one’s own text for confidential documents such as research grant proposals is acceptable.
- Slides and posters prepared for presentations should credit the source of any figures or charts taken from other works.
- When materials are published under licenses that allow reuse, such as Creative Commons licenses, authors should respect the conditions for reuse and attribute credit appropriately.
V. Peer Review
Ethics Standard
Peer review is the accepted process for evaluating research or proposals for research by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work, so-called peers.
Anyone engaging in peer review, whether acting as a reviewer, editor, author, or proposer, is expected to act honestly and ethically to ensure integrity in physics research, so that the quality of publications is not compromised.
Explanations and Recommendations
- All steps in the peer review process should be executed as expeditiously as possible by reviewers, editors, authors, and proposers. The process must be rigorous and insulated from undue influence that would interfere with editorial independence.
- It is an ethical breach for reviewers, editors, or anyone else consulted during the review process to use materials shared with them for any purpose other than evaluating the materials. Making use of confidential information in this way provides an unfair advantage and undermines the peer review process.
- Reviewers and editors should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or proposers, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. (See Conflicts of Interest and Commitment below.)
VI. References in Scientific Communication
Ethics Standard
References within a scientific communication make it possible for readers to access, and for authors to attribute, relevant prior work in the scientific literature. Proper referencing gives credit to those whose research has informed the work in question, helps avoid duplication of effort, and increases the value of a paper or other communication by guiding the reader to related materials.
Authors are expected to make every effort towards comprehensive referencing to give a balanced view of the history and progress of a field.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Proper and complete referencing is an essential part of any physics research publication. It is unethical for authors to knowingly omit references to a relevant author/publication, include gratuitous references, or manipulate citations.
- Reference lists should represent the entire field and avoid favoring specific research groups, regions, or institutions.
VII. Policies for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
Ethics Standard
Research misconduct damages the research enterprise, eroding trust and slowing progress to the detriment of all.
Institutions and organizations may establish their own policies and procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct, in compliance with legal requirements. APS members are expected to be aware of and fully adhere to and support their institution’s policies and procedures to uphold the integrity of their institution and the broader scientific enterprise.
Explanations and Recommendations
- A person who witnesses a colleague engaging in research misconduct is obligated to act in accordance with institutional requirements. Institutions must protect such reporters so that they do not suffer reprisals or retaliation. At the same time, misconduct investigations require a fair and systematic approach to assessing and responding to allegations.
- Researchers should adhere to governmental policies on research misconduct, as well as associated institutional requirements. U.S. researchers with Federal support should see the U.S. Federal Regulations on Research Misconduct.
- Everyone has a responsibility to be aware of institutional policies regarding research misconduct and ensure that their supervisees are also aware of these policies.
Treatment of Colleagues
I. Explicit, Systemic, and Implicit Bias
Ethics Standard
APS values its diverse membership and supports the right of all people to participate in the physics community free from discrimination. APS specifically rejects discrimination based upon race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, political ideology, or any other legally recognized grounds.
Members should strive to be aware of their biases and alert to situations where bias can damage colleagues or the progress of science.
Explanations and Recommendations
- APS strongly encourages members to participate in efforts designed to counteract explicit, systemic, and implicit bias. This is particularly important for members who engage in the hiring or reviewing of other physicists or write or read letters of recommendation on behalf of other physicists applying for jobs, fellowships, or awards.
- During decision-making processes, specific tools such as pre-determined qualification lists and interview scripts may be used to mitigate the impact of unconscious biases.
II. Harassment
Ethics Standard
Harassment is disrespectful behavior of any kind with the intent or effect of harming, humiliating, and/or controlling another person.
APS opposes all forms of harassment, including those that create an atmosphere in which productive scientific discourse is not possible. Observers of harassment, often called bystanders, have a responsibility to report instances to the appropriate institution.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Harassment may include verbal and physical interactions, and the display or circulation of written materials or images, including those communicated via text messaging or social media. It is different from criticism offered in good faith with the aim of advancing science.
- Harassment may be based on group membership including race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, and political ideology.
- APS is an international society, so it is important to recognize that behavior and language that are welcome/acceptable to one person may be unwelcome/offensive to another. Members must use consideration to ensure that their words and actions are appropriate. This is especially important for those in positions of authority, since individuals with lower institutional status may be reluctant to express their objections or discomfort regarding unwelcome behavior.
- Sometimes, a frank discussion can resolve a conflict without the need for a formal complaint.
- Preventing harassment is everyone’s responsibility. When a member learns of an allegation of harassment, they are responsible to report the information to the appropriate institution.
III. Treatment of Supervisees
Ethics Standard
Colleagues should always be treated with respect and with concern for their well-being. Supervisors have a special responsibility to supervisees because they oversee their research, education, and professional development.
Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that supervisees have the knowledge and training to perform their work safely, promoting their timely advancement to the next stage of career development, and providing fair compensation and a supportive working environment.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Contributions of supervisees should be properly acknowledged in publications, presentations, and performance appraisals. Supervisees who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of a research study should be offered the opportunity to author or co-author any resulting publications.
- Supervisors and/or other senior scientists should not be listed on papers of supervisees unless they have also contributed significantly to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the research study. Merely providing funding is not sufficient for authorship but should be noted in the acknowledgements.
- Mentoring of students, postdoctoral researchers, and employees with respect to intellectual development, professional and ethical standards, and career guidance is a core responsibility for supervisors and established senior scientists. Periodic communication of constructive performance appraisals is essential for individuals to thrive in work and research environments. It is the responsibility of any professional physicist who is in a supervisory role to adhere to good workplace practices as they relate to mentoring and performance appraisals.
- Supervisors should ensure that students, postdoctoral researchers, and employees are informed as to where they can get help to resolve conflicts, and where they can report harassment, including sexual harassment.
Responsibility to the Profession
I. Ethical Use of Public Funds
Ethics Standard
The acceptance of public funds comes with the expectation that these funds will be spent in the intended manner, one that upholds the public trust in science and in the physics community.
Misuse of public funds represents a serious ethical breach.
Explanations and Recommendations
- All research funding sources must be accurately reported at the time of a grant application.
- When there are multiple sources of external support, research time allocation must be accurately apportioned between projects and truthfully reported to project sponsors.
- Requesting grant support from multiple agencies for a project is allowed, but accepting funding for the same research from multiple agencies without full acknowledgement and express approval of the agencies involved is unethical and may have legal consequences.
II. Conflicts of Interest and Commitment
Ethics Standard
Conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed. This allows determination of whether they can be managed or whether the conflicting activity must be discontinued.
Conflicts of commitment include acceptance of projects or roles that are beyond one’s available time and resources.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Conflicts of interest are matters that, when revealed later, would make others feel misled or deceived, may prevent full attention being paid to one’s responsibilities, or improperly influence one’s judgment and decision-making.
- Conflicts relevant to the publication process must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers. Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. Editors may need to withdraw from the review of conflicted submissions.
- Conflicts associated with awards and promotion decisions are defined by institutional policies and must be disclosed.
III. Dishonor to the Profession
Ethics Standard
Dishonor to the profession is an ethical violation when injurious conduct is likely to bring significant discredit, dishonor, disgrace to the reputation of APS or the scientific community at large. Such conduct harms society and damages the profession.
All physicists have a responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards. They are accountable to each other and to society at large.
Explanations and Recommendations
- Dishonorable conduct includes professional and personal acts that raise questions as to whether a member’s conduct is detrimental to APS based on the physicist’s membership in the Society.
- Dishonorable conduct is not intended to be a catchall for any purported ethical violation. Instead, dishonorable conduct is reserved for extraordinary and egregious acts or omissions, such as but not limited to criminal offenses and/or convictions related to scientific conduct.
IV. Social Media
Ethics Standard
Standards for social media are evolving quickly. The "APS Social Media and Photography Best Practices" guidance is linked here.
In general, social media communications should be accurate and not misleading with respect to their content and contain correct attributions to prior work when appropriate.
Explanations and Recommendations
- In public outreach communications, wording and images used to describe scientific work should be understandable to the non-specialist, thereby minimizing opportunities for misinterpretation.
- Claims of impacts to science, technology, and society beyond those that have been rigorously established can be misleading and should be avoided or clearly identified as speculation.
V. Education for Ethics Standards, and Practices
Ethics Standards
Education in professional ethics is an essential part of science education.
It is the responsibility of all scientists to ensure that their students receive education that specifically addresses this area.
Explanations and Recommendations
- The American Physical Society will develop, maintain, and disseminate materials to support ethics education and training.
1The Explanations and Recommendations sections in these standards provide background information, including factors considered in the development of the guideline or reasons underlying its creation. These sections are not controlling in ethics determinations. Instead, they include considerations intended to provide context for how the ethical standard may be applied.
Revised and adopted by the Board of Directors: Dec. 16, 2024
Effective: Jan. 1, 2025