Unit 5 Assignment 5 Answers
I am an employee of an institution that attaches great importance to publication. For the purpose of getting a favorable tenure decision, I spend two years to complete a 25 page manuscript, which including 5 pages of caveats. Recently, the editor requested me to limit the manuscripts to 20 pages. It is impossible to shorten other places. As the auditor of manuscripts, I am in a dilemma. I am considering whether to eliminate 5 pages of caveats or not.
If I choose to satisfy editor’s requirement and cut 5 pages of caveats, I may face the result of possible misunderstanding from readers. Appropriate findings and caveats are important to the interpretation of my research paper. Especially, an integrated report is the basis of subsequent publication. As the auditor, I am responsible for my publication. In addition, I had laid out a search plan to several supporting accounting firms to commit that the manuscripts would cover a series of caveats. Once the accounting firms notice my final released version is different from the copies that I send to them, they may not trust me anymore.
On the contrary, if I regret to remove 5 pages of caveats, the manuscripts will not be published because the editor only accepted shortened version. Furthermore, five pages …show more content…
interpretation is not enough to have an elaboration. At that time, the search plan that I worked out with department chair will be impacted a lot. Consequently, my publication profile will face a major gap because a favorable evaluation is dependent on the fulfilling of the plan.
Compared the advantage and disadvantage of eliminating 5 pages of caveats or not, I will choose to remove 5 pages of caveats on the temptation of a favorable tenure evaluation.
Consequentialism is a philosophy that focuses on the end result. In this case, I will get a good evaluation at the end if I post shorten manuscript. What’s more, even though some readers may be confused about conclusion without supporting findings, they are not harmed by my action. In addition, deleting caveats part is unethical but not illegal. The law will not punish me. The last reason is that people do not read journal carefully in a common situation, so few people will realize omission in the paper. The possibility of being caught up is
low.
However, in order to insure every reader understand the conclusion, I will add a highlight link to the paper that I describe details about caveats. At the same time, I will send an email to all supporting firms to explain the situation and show my solution. Even though the final publication will be different from the copies that I send to accounting firms, every reader will know all information as they have.
If I choose to satisfy editor’s requirement and cut 5 pages of caveats, I may face the result of possible misunderstanding from readers. Appropriate findings and caveats are important to the interpretation of my research paper. Especially, an integrated report is the basis of subsequent publication. As the auditor, I am responsible for my publication. In addition, I had laid out a search plan to several supporting accounting firms to commit that the manuscripts would cover a series of caveats. Once the accounting firms notice my final released version is different from the copies that I send to them, they may not trust me anymore.
On the contrary, if I regret to remove 5 pages of caveats, the manuscripts will not be published because the editor only accepted shortened version. Furthermore, five pages …show more content…
interpretation is not enough to have an elaboration. At that time, the search plan that I worked out with department chair will be impacted a lot. Consequently, my publication profile will face a major gap because a favorable evaluation is dependent on the fulfilling of the plan.
Compared the advantage and disadvantage of eliminating 5 pages of caveats or not, I will choose to remove 5 pages of caveats on the temptation of a favorable tenure evaluation.
Consequentialism is a philosophy that focuses on the end result. In this case, I will get a good evaluation at the end if I post shorten manuscript. What’s more, even though some readers may be confused about conclusion without supporting findings, they are not harmed by my action. In addition, deleting caveats part is unethical but not illegal. The law will not punish me. The last reason is that people do not read journal carefully in a common situation, so few people will realize omission in the paper. The possibility of being caught up is
low.
However, in order to insure every reader understand the conclusion, I will add a highlight link to the paper that I describe details about caveats. At the same time, I will send an email to all supporting firms to explain the situation and show my solution. Even though the final publication will be different from the copies that I send to accounting firms, every reader will know all information as they have.