Ethics Discourse in a Recurring Journal Format: A Proposal to Increase Ethics Discussion and Supports for Ethical Decision-Making

Quigley and colleagues wrote a position paper. They asked, "What if every behavior-analysis journal ran a standing ethics-discourse section?"

The section would publish short case dilemmas, reader replies, and expert follow-ups. It would come out every issue, like a sports column but for ethics.

The paper is a proposal, not an experiment. The authors argue that a recurring ethics column would give BCBAs a safe, public place to practice ethical decision-making.

They say steady discussion could stop ethics violations before they happen, much like weekly drills prevent fires.

Whalon et al. (2019) and Brodhead et al. (2018) sounded a similar alarm. Kelly urged ethical dissemination; Brodhead pushed clearer competence checks. Quigley et al. (2025) answers, "Give the field a permanent forum for both issues."

Capuano et al. (2021) handed readers a one-time pseudoscience decision tree. Quigley’s proposal would create a living, expanding library of such trees, updated each quarter.

Watson-Thompson et al. (2022) asked BCBAs to tackle systemic racism. A standing ethics section could host that conversation and many others without waiting for special issues.

You can’t master ethics with a single CEU. A regular ethics column would keep tough cases in your feed, give you language for tricky parent meetings, and show you how peers handle the same squeeze. Ask your favorite journal to pilot the idea—tweet, email, or bring it up at the next editorial board meeting.