DNP 707 Module 3 Ethics in Publication Discussion Example

Reviewed by Ingrid Vasterling, MSN, RN Arizona State University Updated October 2026

This DNP 707 Module 3 sample prepares for the Ethics Discussion in Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy, a course in ASU's Doctor of Nursing Practice. ASU DNP 707 grades a live dialogue within each learning community about ethics in publication and presentation, held on Zoom in Week 4. The composite DNP student writes a short position brief before the call. She works through five questions raised by her own fracture liaison project: who earns authorship, how to spot a predatory journal, how to present small clinic numbers without exposing patients, how to report a result that did not improve, and how much of one abstract can be reused. Each section ends with a question to put to her group.

CourseDNP 707 Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy
ModuleModule 3
Paper typeEthics discussion preparation brief
LengthAbout 492 words, 4 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolArizona State University
ProgramDoctor of Nursing Practice
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for DNP 707 Module 3

1

Who Gets Named, Where It Goes, What It Shows: Preparing for a Discussion on Ethics in Publishing a DNP Project

Student Name

Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University

DNP 707: Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title groups the ethical questions into credit, venue and content, the three places a DNP student most often meets them.
2

Who Gets Named, Where It Goes, What It Shows: Preparing for a Discussion on Ethics in Publishing a DNP Project

Authorship and Acknowledgment

My project mentor, the clinic nurse who ran the pathway and a statistician all contributed. Widely used journal criteria require all four of the following for authorship: a substantial contribution to the project, a hand in writing or revising the manuscript for important content, approval of the version submitted, and willingness to answer for the work (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, n.d.). My mentor meets all four and will be a coauthor. The clinic nurse delivered the intervention but did not help write; under those criteria she belongs in the acknowledgments, with her permission. That feels unfair to me, so I will invite her to review and revise the manuscript, which would let her qualify. Question for the group: is it ethical to add writing tasks so a valued colleague can meet authorship criteria?

What this page is doingEach ethics issue is grounded in a real decision the student faces with this project, which gives the discussion something concrete to debate.
3

Predatory Journals

After my poster abstract was accepted, I received three emails inviting me to publish in journals I had never heard of, each promising review within a week. A consensus panel defined predatory journals as entities that put self-interest ahead of scholarship and are marked by false or misleading information, departure from best editorial and publication practice, lack of transparency and aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation (Grudniewicz et al., 2019). Nursing is not immune: one study found well over a hundred predatory journals publishing nursing content (Oermann et al., 2016). Before submitting anywhere, I will confirm indexing, check the editorial board and ask my mentor. Question: should DNP programs keep a list of trusted journals for graduates?

Privacy in Small Numbers

My clinic has four surgeons and sees a few dozen eligible patients each month. A poster table showing results by surgeon or by fracture site in a given month could reveal individual patients or embarrass a colleague. I will report results for the clinic as a whole, suppress any cell smaller than five, use no patient photographs and present the site without its name until leadership approves.

What this page is doingThe privacy section recognizes that small clinic numbers can identify patients or clinicians, a risk many students miss.
4

Reporting What Did Not Work

Knowledge scores improved, but the share of patients completing the three-month phone call was lower than planned. SQUIRE 2.0 asks authors to report unintended consequences and limitations as well as successes (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Leaving the weak follow-up result out would make the poster look cleaner and the evidence less honest. Question: how much space should a weak result get on a poster with a strict word count?

What this page is doingCommitting to report the weak follow-up rate follows the SQUIRE expectation that limitations appear alongside results.
5

One Project, Several Venues

The same results will appear in a poster, a DNP Talk, an executive summary and, I hope, a journal article. Reusing my own words across a poster and a later article is generally accepted if the article discloses the earlier presentation, but submitting the same manuscript to two journals at once is not. I will keep a log of every venue and disclose prior presentations in the cover letter.

References

Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., ... Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Oermann, M. H., Conklin, J. L., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Edie, A. H., Amarasekara, S., & Budinger, S. C. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(6), 624-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12248

Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411

What the DNP 707 Module 3 instructions ask for

The posted syllabus lists the Ethics Discussion at 100 points as a learning community activity: a live, scholarly dialogue held over Zoom in Week 4 about ethics in publication and presentation. The grade comes from the conversation itself, so preparation matters more than polish. Expect faculty to look for contributions grounded in sources, responses that build on classmates' points, and examples drawn from your own project. Typical topics include authorship, predatory publishing, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, conflicts of interest, patient privacy and honest reporting. Your learning community schedules the session. A one-page brief like this one keeps your points ready during the call. Read the ethics readings posted for that week first, since peers will expect you to know them and faculty often ask about them directly.

How the DNP 707 Module 3 example is put together

The brief takes five ethical questions that the writer's own project raises and handles each the same way: the situation, the standard that applies, her decision and a question for the group. Authorship is tested against published criteria rather than feelings, and the brief admits the tension that creates. Predatory publishing is defined from a consensus statement and shown to affect nursing. Privacy is treated as a practical problem of small numbers on a poster. Honest reporting draws on a reporting guideline. Questions at the end of sections give her something to offer when the conversation stalls, which is how a live discussion is usually graded. Every standard the brief relies on is named and cited, so classmates can check or challenge it during the call.

DNP 707 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Faculty grading a live ethics dialogue weigh how well prepared you are, how correctly you apply ethical standards and sources, the quality of each contribution, respectful engagement with peers, and application to the student's own project. Faculty notice students who ask good questions as well as those who answer them. Citing a definition or criterion during the call shows scholarship. Applying principles to specific situations, such as a small table on a poster, shows judgment. Building on a classmate's point by name keeps the dialogue scholarly. Staying within time and inviting quieter members in is part of professional conduct. Bring sources you can quote briefly. Faculty also watch whether students change their view when a peer raises a better argument, which is a sign of genuine dialogue.

DNP 707 Module 3 help with common mistakes

Students sometimes prepare a speech and read it, which does not count as dialogue. Prepare points and questions, not paragraphs. Another trap is discussing ethics only in the abstract; tie each point to something in your own project. Know the authorship criteria well enough to apply them. Have one example ready of a predatory solicitation if you have received one. If you would like help preparing a discussion brief, send the syllabus prompt and your project summary to the desk. Test your camera and microphone before the call, and keep sources open in a second window. Decide in advance which two points you most want to make, in case the call runs short.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

Request this one custom, free All DNP 707 module samples

More DNP 707 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers

DNP 707 Module 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DNP 707 Module 3 sample paper?

The ethics discussion brief above is complete: authorship, predatory journals, privacy with small numbers, honest reporting and reuse across venues, each tied to a DNP project.

How is the DNP 707 Ethics Discussion graded?

The syllabus lists it at 100 points as a live learning community dialogue via Zoom about ethics in publication and presentation.

Who qualifies as an author on a DNP project paper?

Under widely used journal criteria, people who contribute substantially, help draft or revise, approve the final version and accept accountability.

What is a predatory journal?

A publisher that puts self-interest ahead of scholarship, with misleading information, poor editorial practice, little transparency and aggressive solicitation.

Can I reuse my DNP poster abstract in a journal article?

Usually yes, if you disclose the earlier presentation; submitting the same manuscript to two journals at once is not acceptable.