Prompt
You are an undergraduate student working in a research lab. You spent a year collecting and analyzing data for a project that is about to be published. When you see the draft, the principal investigator has listed a visiting professor who did no work on the project as second author, and has left out a fellow undergraduate who worked alongside you for six months. You are listed as third author. What would you do?
Practice this question
After you practice: what this question tests and how to approach it
What this question tests
- Ethical reasoning
- Professionalism and integrity
- Communication
How to approach this question
This MMI station tests whether you'll speak up about unfair research credit when your supervisor holds power over your future and the person most harmed isn't you. Name the stakeholders: the fellow undergraduate who was left out, the visiting professor, the principal investigator, readers who trust author lists, and you. Acknowledge what you might not know, such as whether the visiting professor contributed in ways you didn't see. Consider how you'd raise the question respectfully with the principal investigator, and when you'd involve your colleague or the university's research office. Weigh fairness and research integrity against the risk to your relationship with a mentor, then commit to a first step. When your reference letter comes into the picture, be honest about how that pressure feels and explain why it shouldn't change your course.
More on research ethics
All 9 questions on this topicMock interviews
If you want to practice with a person, we run mock MMI and panel interviews with feedback on every answer.
