A third co-author C of a study in 2016 available on-line (under subscription) want to re-use the data (included in the figures or tables) of this paper with for others co-authors (A, B, D, E). Co-authors C and A are in conflict.These data will be presented and analyzed in a different manner to support its own and new data set in a paper that Co-author C want to submit as unique author. Co-author C will only use the published data (and not the raw data) of the study of 2010. Some raw data are available on-line (under subscription). However, co-author C only collected but not processed an insignificant part these data. After asking the editor permission that co-author C have (he is limited to re-use only 3 tables or figures), do co-author C has the right to publish part of theses data in a new paper as a unique author? these data are considered to represent (30%) of the data set for the new paper. Does the co-author C has the right to re-use the data without permission of the others co-authors (A, B, D, E)? The same may be also applied to the raw data already published as supporting data? IS the co-author C allowed to include in “material and method ” or in “results” section some brief sentences describing how he gets the some of these data and these previous results in its new paper as unique author?
The PI request to include all the co-authors (A, B, D, E) for the new publication of co-author C. Co-author C is not agreed as most of the co-authors (A, B, D, E) did not participate in the elaboration, analyze and writing task of the new paper.

A third co-author C of a study in 2016 available on-line (under subscription) want to re-use the data (included in the figures or tables) of this paper with for others co-authors (A, B, D, E). Co-authors C and A are in conflict.These data will be presented and analyzed in a different manner to support its own and new data set in a paper that Co-author C want to submit as unique author. Co-author C will only use the published data (and not the raw data) of the study of 2010. Some raw data are available on-line (under subscription). However, co-author C only collected but not processed an insignificant part these data. After asking the editor permission that co-author C have (he is limited to re-use only 3 tables or figures), do co-author C has the right to publish part of theses data in a new paper as a unique author? these data are considered to represent (30%) of the data set for the new paper. Does the co-author C has the right to re-use the data without permission of the others co-authors (A, B, D, E)? The same may be also applied to the raw data already published as supporting data? IS the co-author C allowed to include in “material and method ” or in “results” section some brief sentences describing how he gets the some of these data and these previous results in its new paper as unique author?
The PI request to include all the co-authors (A, B, D, E) for the new publication of co-author C. Co-author C is not agreed as most of the co-authors (A, B, D, E) did not participate in the elaboration, analyze and writing task of the new paper.

I’m to do a research of a specific type of computer software packages (e.g. spreadsheet programs or instant messaging tools), trying to prove that this type of software shows a certain feature (e.g, “all the spreadsheets programs allow you to make additions”).

As I have no time to test all of the 50+ software packages I found of this certain field, I wondered if there was a methodology which determines the most relevant software. Thanks to this, I could claim that “the most relevant spreadsheets programs allow you to make additions”.

I wondered if somebody developed a methodology (for instance, a Multiple-criteria analysis) which weighs and analyzes several indicators like number of users, number of citations in academical papers, update frequency, type of license, etc.

Thank you very much.

Numerous posts on this site address anonymous or pseudonymous publication, but not anonymous or pseudonymous fieldwork.

There plausibly exist situations in which a researcher undertaking fieldwork would have to conceal their own identity from non-researchers they encounter in the field, in order to protect themselves or the research project. Here are some possible scenarios:

  • Previous research has shown that the community under study deviates from its normal behaviour when it knows a researcher is present.

  • The researcher would be in danger if their profession or identity were known to people in the field.

  • The researcher plans to publish anonymously or pseudonymously, and would otherwise risk being “outed” by people encountered in the field.

What are some good sources on research ethics that discuss protocols for handling such cases?

Can you provide any published examples describing such fieldwork?

I want to use comments on the internet to gather user requirements.

I plan to collect these comments, read them and decide what the person wants based on what they’ve written. These list of “wants” will form the user requirements.

For example:

John: I hate the way the program keeps asking me if I’m sure I want to exit.

Could form the requirement:

An option to disable exit confirmation prompts.

What’s a suitable methodology for this? I need a process to follow or guidelines to do it correctly. Is it classed as qualitative research?

I’ve already got a little experience doing self-led research but not in doing setup for the domain in which I work. I really enjoy talking with my supervisor about actual research topics, but I don’t enjoy the workflow he suggests.

For example, there is a particular software development toolkit I’ve been told to use, but it’s constructed in such an unorthodox way as to be unusable outside of a certain development environment in a very specific way (in Eclipse IDE) and isn’t compatible with development conventions which are nearly ten years old (Maven). I only found this out when it was too late and have had to jury-rig everything as I go, and now, due to having thrown together a bunch of weird stuff together without testing it properly (having been given the green light by my supervisor, respecting his decision that it would work fine), I’ve spent six months collecting data which is messed up to the point of being unusable. My supervisor was also surprised, admitting that he didn’t expect any sort of problem like that (which is why he recommended throwing the said things together).

I like and respect my supervisor but can’t help but feel the whole project has gone sour thanks to “just doing it the simple way” which has turned out to be unbelievably complicated and now it’s very likely I spent all that effort for nothing. What can I do when I respect my supervisor’s research advice but don’t like doing things the way he does? Obviously it works well for him, so I feel even more disillusioned that I’m the one with all these problems.


Being more sure of the nature of the working relationships at the department, I now feel that I could have politely declined at the time without offending said person as long as I was confident and produced results.