 This module is specifically related to the issues of research and publications when it comes towards reporting the research results. This is very important that once we have completed the complete research project, how we are going to report that. Psychologists do not fabricate data is the first and foremost important thing to understand. Psychologists discover significant errors in their published data that take reasonable steps to correct that, such as error in correction, retraction, irratum or other appropriate publication means. Let's say that data is published and it's open to everyone, it's an open access and everyone could read that and in that information you later on assessed that there was a problem. So it's your ethical responsibility, it's the ethical responsibility of that researcher, that psychologist to immediately inform that publication agency, the journal or the newspaper that this error has been done. So if we don't do this, then that research may lead towards many other researches in which the data will be used and the harmful effects of that data's fabrication, due to the genuine incorrectness of that data, we will have to see the consequences later on. Now let's say that where is the fabrication? Fabrication is that which is very much important to understand, at times generally the inexperienced researcher, sometimes the student of psychology if I carefully say and maybe some professional researchers. They tend to do that they fabricate the data to get results which are appropriate for them and they can quickly publish them. This is one of the highly unethical practice which has ever been seen in world of ethics because if you fabricate data and you generate research which is not actually true, it's a big crime. So we produce such results, we give such statements, we direct such hypotheses which actually exist. Then plagiarism, plagiarism is something I think that every individual who is related to academics or research is well aware of the term plagiarism and today a lot of softwares have come which are not very good, but still people have many ways to reduce that plagiarism in an unappropriate manner. But psychologists do not present portions of another works or data as their own even if the other work or data sources is cited occasionally. We cannot do this by presenting any other work as our own work and not citing it and not giving it due credit. In fact, we can rewrite its work and credit its source and honour it in our work. And that would not be considered into plagiarism. But if we all together copy some total content and we claim that this is being written by us either it's a research paper, either it's a journal, either it's a research report or either it's some paper or a thesis maybe, it's highly unethical. Then talking about the publication credit. This is something very important to understand what does the publication credit means. Psychologists take credit and responsibility including authorship credit only for the work they have actually performed or substantially contributed. If there is any research work that you have never done, which you have never parted in, which you have never been a part of, neither write-up, nor its data collection, nor its supervision, and you have carried it as your own work, your name as an author is reflected in the publication, this is called unethical, this is called a crime and this is taking an undue publication credit. Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific and professional contributions. And I would like to share this with students that if a work is primarily being done by a student, the first author should be the student always and the second author should be the supervisor. However, in some institutions this is required that if after a certain period of time, let's say six months and one year, the student is unable to do work, they may have this condition that the student may lose the right of being the first author, but still he would be the second. But this is need to be very carefully seen that if the student has been working and he is interested to get the work being published, you cannot just take the right of the student and you cannot just deprive him from that publication credit. So the researchers needs to understand that they just can't take the credit of the students on their own. Duplicate publication of data is another important thing. Psychologists do not publish previously published data as original data. You have worked on one data, given research findings and then you use that data again after four or five years. This is unethical. But only republish it with proper acknowledgement. Like you saw a health status, you did a health survey in Pakistan and you did a health survey again five years later. Now you are using again the five years old data to compare that with the new data. So you can acknowledge that the data set is five years old and we are comparing them with one another and we are seeing that what disparity is coming in health status or what improvement is coming. So without publication credit, we just can't duplicate publication of data. Reviewers who review the material submitted for publication, grant, or research proposals review respect of confidentiality and the rights of those who are submitting those journals. They just can't pressurize their work. They just can't publish their work with their own name. It's very, very unethical that you have a manuscript review. We research grant I, you copied it yourself and submitted it to someone else in your name. Students may sound that very surprising that would this be a possible thing to do ever? But yet there has been incidences in past in which these things has been done. And to avoid them, these are also being included now in code of ethics. That we can't present someone's work in the process of review like this. Then coming towards the sharing research data for verification. After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based. If that research data from you, a journal, a reviewer, an expert, an external examiner asks for it, you are bound to provide those data on which you have done substantial research. Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through re-analysis may use the shared data only for the declared purposes. If a researcher claims that the results of my research are not what you are saying, you share the data with me, I will compare them with mine. So the data could only be used for that very purpose rather than to generate new research. So this is very much important that we use the data for the purpose only. Then requesting psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of data. So to ensure that we need to have a consent from that person in writing agreement from that person that he or she will only be using the data for the purpose he is claiming for. So this is very important that we do publication, duplication of credit and similarly for data management, if we borrow data from someone, we verify it and we keep all ethical practices under consideration.