Dr Jones Case

I was not surprising while I read this case because it is one of the most common cases in the field of research. clarifying all major details in a presentation or meeting before publishing is the big mistake that leads some people to act unethically. They will take advantages of this disclosure for their own good. Therefore, it is very important not to announce some of key words in the experiment to others until the paper has been published. However, In George’s case, he was so enthusiastic and he forgot to keep some of his primary details unclear for the others in his field. Since he is a graduate student, he is easy prey by other experts who seek to publish more papers as many as they could. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones unethically exploited …show more content…
He could talk to the rapid journal and show them all his data as an evidence that Dr. Jones took his idea also he could ask them to remove the Dr. Jones’s papers from the journal. Then, he can ask for investigation in Dr. Jones work and find the similarities information to his presentation and data. Also, George can make win-win solution by asking Dr. Jones to post his name as a co-author in the paper. In the story, Dr. Jones published some similar data to George’s work. That means George has some data that Dr. Jones has not exposed to it. In this case, George could have two papers. One by asking Dr. Jones to post his name as co-author and also he can publish the other data that he has and post his name as first …show more content…
However, Dr. Louis can play a significant role to solve the issue. Since he is the advisor of George’s experiments, he has much information about his hypothesis, and he can involve in the investigation in Dr. Jones’s paper. Also, Dr. Louis is a professor so he can talk to Dr. Jones and tell him what the consequences if he did not post George’ name as co-author in his paper or remove the paper from the journal. The stakeholders in this case are George and Dr. Jones. If they collaborate together and post their names in the paper. George will not ask for investigation and Dr. Jones will receive the point from the paper ethically without making conflict with George. Regards of the value that on stake, if Dr. Jones did not post the George name, his work will be considered as a plagiarism that impact negatively on his collaborative work with others and a black spot in his record. In conclusion, George should get credit in the paper because he is the pioneer of this discovery. Also there are two options for Dr. Jones either post the George’s name on the paper or remove the paper from the Journal. If George accepted the win-win solution, he will receive two papers. One collaborated with Dr. Jones as co-author and second for his other data that Dr. Jones has not taken