ethics in publication_ Prashant_Prakash.pptx

research ethics important topics

1.       University Institute of Engineering and Technology PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH Publication Ethics Prashant Prakash PhD scholar M echanical Engineering

2. What is Publication Ethics? Publication ethics are rules of conduct to be followed while publishing results of scientific research or other scholarly work. It refers to the set of principles and standards that guide the conduct of individuals and organizations involved in the process of publishing scholarly research. These principles aim to ensure the integrity, transparency, and reliability of published research, as well as to maintain the trust of the scientific community and the public in the scholarly publishing process. KEY ASPECTS

3. Importance of Publication Ethics

4. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals OASPA - Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) WAME - World Association of Medical Editors

5. Journal Content Name of journal : Must be unique and accurately represent the journal's scope. Website : Secure, maintained, non-misleading, and compliant with web standards. Publishing schedule : Clearly defined frequency maintained except for exceptional circumstances. Archiving : Clear plan for digital preservation, indicating backup and long-term access. Copyright : Terms clearly stated for published content, separate from website copyright. Licensing : Clear licensing information for all content, especially Open Access materials.

6. Journal Practices Publication ethics: Clear policies on authorship, complaints, research misconduct, conflicts, data sharing, ethical oversight, intellectual property, corrections, retractions. Peer review: Transparent peer review processes, including reviewers' identity, masking policies, decision-making, exceptions. Access: Description of access methods, whether free or paid, including offline options. Organization Ownership and management : Clear indication of ownership, avoiding misleading affiliations. Advisory body : Expert editorial boards, regularly reviewed for relevance and appropriateness. Editorial team/contact information : Full names, affiliations, and contact details of editors provided.

7. Business Practices Author fees : Clear statement of any charges, waivers, and their influence on editorial decisions. Other revenue : Transparent disclosure of revenue sources, ensuring they don't influence editorial decisions. Advertising : Policy on accepting advertisements, keeping them separate from editorial decision-making. Direct marketing : Appropriate, targeted, and unobtrusive marketing, ensuring truthfulness and non-misleading information.

8. Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office : COPE guidelines Robust Practices Transparency Clear Policies Authorship & Contributorship Peer Review Processes Misconduct Handling Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Data Availability & Reporting Ethical Conduct Guidelines Copyright, Licensing & Fees Journal Management Transparency Post-Publication Management Complaint Handling Clear Policies

9. Editing peer reviews : COPE guidelines Clear Reviewer Guidelines : Journals should provide clear guidelines to reviewers regarding acceptable and unacceptable aspects of review reports, including tone, language, and content. Journal Policy on Editing Reviews : The journal's policy should explicitly state whether reviews are subject to editing and under what circumstances editing may occur. Reviewer Self-Editing : Reviewers should be given the opportunity to edit their review reports themselves to align with the journal's guidelines. Notification of Significant Edits : Editors should inform reviewers if significant edits are made to their review reports, ensuring transparency in the editing process. Scope of Edits : Edits to reviews should focus solely on issues of tone, language, and adherence to journal policy and reviewer guidelines, without altering the review's meaning or the reviewer's professional opinion. Alternative Approaches to Editing : Editors may consider providing a cautionary note in their decision letters instead of directly editing reviews. Policy on Responding to Hostile or Unprofessional Reviews : Journals should establish a policy outlining how to address hostile or unprofessional reviews, ensuring appropriate and professional responses to such instances.

10. Editorial board participation : COPE guidelines Clear Definition of Editorial Roles: Editorial roles should be explicitly defined, including expectations for the number and quality of reviews, editorial decision-making levels, and details of decision chains. Appointment Terms: Appointment terms for editorial board members should be clearly outlined, specifying appointment criteria, length of term, renewal terms, and circumstances for early termination. Conflicts of Interest Policy: Journals should define unacceptable types or levels of conflicts of interest for editors, which may disqualify them from joining the board or lead to removal if unresolved. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Potential editorial board members should be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, ensuring transparency and integrity in editorial decisions. Limitations on Editorial Board Memberships: Journals may need to decide whether it is appropriate for individuals to serve on multiple editorial boards simultaneously within the same field, with similar decision-making responsibilities, or article commissioning authority.

11. Journals’ Best Practices for ensuring consent for publishing medical case reports: guidance from COPE Importance of Proper Consent: Journals must ensure proper consent for publication is obtained and individuals are aware of potential consequences. Requirement for Publication Consent Forms: Journals should require publication consent forms for case reports where individuals or groups can be identified, including cases involving deceased persons. Identifying information may include case histories, photos, x-rays, or genetic pedigrees. Availability of Consent Forms: Journals should not collect signed consent forms themselves due to privacy and legal concerns. Instead, they should make blank consent forms available on their websites and require authors to attest to obtaining consent. Author Responsibility: Authors should ensure that either the provided consent form or a form containing all required elements is signed by the patient or proxy. If a different form is used, a blank copy should be provided to the journal for verification. Original Form Retention: Authors should attest that the original signed consent form is held by the treating institution, ensuring proper documentation and accountability.

12. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A conflict of interest exists when two or more contradictory interests relate to an activity by an individual or an institution. It represent circumstances in which professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest, such as the responsibilities of a medical researcher, may be at risk of being unduly influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain or career advancement. Other Definitions Conflicts of interest are “situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigator’s judgement in conducting or reporting research.” AAMC, 1990 “A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research.” NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research .

13. P ublication Misconduct Publication misconduct refers to unethical behavior or violations of scholarly publishing norms that compromise the integrity, credibility, or fairness of the publication process.

14. Types of Publication M isconduct Plagiarism and copyright infringement Plagiarism : Presenting someone else’s ideas or materials as one’s own, without proper acknowledgment or attribution. Copyright infringement : Using another person’s original work without proper acknowledgment or attribution. Duplicate publication Occurs when an author copies and re-publishes their own work without referencing the previous publication. Data fabrication and falsification Data fabrication : Making up results or altering experimental outcomes. Data falsification : Manipulating research data to present false results. Authorship disputes Ensuring proper attribution of authorship is crucial. Disputes may arise when individuals who haven’t contributed are included as authors or when deserving contributors are excluded. . Citation manipulation Attempts to manipulate Journal Impact Factors by deliberately increasing the number of self-citations are unethical Peer review misconduct U nethical behavior of individuals involved in the peer review process of scholarly articles.

15. VIOLATION OF PUBLICATION ETHICS, AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORSHIP Violation of publication ethics refers to actions or practices that breach the established principles and standards governing the conduct of scholarly publishing. These violations can encompass various forms of misconduct, including but not limited to:

16. AUTHORS First author (collected the bulk data and written the paper) M iddle author (can be 2 or more authors) (conducted some research and helped in analysis) L ast author (is a principle investigator, designed the project and provided funds) Contributor Ship A person who has helped only in some part of the work can’t be listed as author but their contributions must be mentioned in acknowledgements of the articles. As per ICMJE, acknowledgment should be provided for writing, assistance, editing and proofreading Contributors can be classified as : I ntellectual (one who gives ideas or helps in writing) P ractical (who helps in performing experimental) F inancial (who helps in funding the research).

17. Unethical Authorship Practice Description Guest authorship Including names of individuals who have no knowledge or contribution to the research solely for the purpose of increasing acceptance rates. For example, adding the name of a journal reviewer who has not contributed to the work. Ghost authorship Omitting the name of the primary researcher who conducted the majority of the work due to conflicts of interest or ideas within the author group. The actual contributor's name is excluded, and others may take credit for the work. Anonymous authorship Using false names or pen names in place of the actual authors' identities, which can lead to issues such as false credit or misattribution of work. Surrogate authorship Publishing someone else's work under one's own name, where the actual author may not wish to publish or take credit for their work. The published work is attributed to another individual. Gift authorship Adding names of individuals, such as partners, colleagues, or helpers, who have not contributed to the research as a gesture of gratitude or favor, leading to undeserved credit. Salami slicing Dividing a single research project into multiple smaller publications, known as "slices," to increase the number of publications without adding substantial new findings. This practice can lead to redundant publications and fragmented dissemination of research results.

18. Identification of Publication Misconduct Identifying publication misconduct involves vigilant scrutiny by various stakeholders, including journal editors, peer reviewers, and the research community at large. Here are some common methods for identifying misconduct: Plagiarism detection software: Editors often use specialized software to detect instances of plagiarism by comparing submitted manuscripts against a vast database of published works. Peer review: Peers reviewing a manuscript may identify suspicious patterns, inconsistencies, or deviations from ethical guidelines. Whistle-blower reports: Concerned individuals may report suspected misconduct to journal editors or relevant authorities. Post-publication scrutiny: After publication, readers may identify issues and bring them to the attention of journal editors or the institution where the research was conducted.

19. Handling Complaints When allegations of publication misconduct arise, it's essential to have clear procedures in place for handling complaints. This process should be fair, transparent, and impartial. Key steps in handling complaints include: Receipt and evaluation: Journal editors or institutional bodies responsible for ethics may receive complaints and assess their validity. They may request additional evidence or information from both the complainant and the accused. Investigation: If the complaint warrants further investigation, an independent panel or committee may be convened to examine the evidence, interview relevant parties, and make a determination regarding the alleged misconduct. Resolution: Based on the findings of the investigation, the responsible body may take appropriate actions, such as issuing corrections, retractions, or sanctions against the individuals involved. The resolution should be communicated transparently to all concerned parties.

20. Facilitating Appeals It's essential to provide mechanisms for appeals to ensure procedural fairness and accountability in the handling of misconduct allegations. Appeals processes typically involve the following steps: Submission of appeal: Individuals dissatisfied with the outcome of a misconduct investigation may submit an appeal to a higher authority, such as an appeals committee or an ombudsman. Review of appeal: The appeals body will review the grounds for the appeal, examine the evidence, and assess whether due process was followed during the initial investigation. Decision: After careful consideration, the appeals body may uphold the original decision, modify it, or recommend further actions. The decision of the appeals body should be final and communicated to all parties involved.

21. Predatory Publishers and Journals Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarly standards, characterized by false information, deviation from best practices, lack of transparency, and aggressive solicitation practices. Characteristics of Predatory Journals : These journals often lack indexing in reputable databases, genuine peer review, and transparency. They may offer false impact factors, aggressive marketing, and fake editorial boards.

22. Shamsheer et al. 2014 proposed 13 characteristics to identify potential predatory journals . S.No . Description 1. The scope of interest includes non-biomedical subjects alongside biomedical topics. 2. The website contains spelling and grammar errors. 3. The images are distorted/fuzzy, intended to look like something they are not, or which are unauthorized. 4. The homepage language targets authors. 5. The index Copernicus Value is promoted on the website. 6. Description of the manuscript handling process is lacking. 7. Manuscript are requested to be submitted via email. 8. Rapid publication is promised. 9. There is no retraction policy 10. Information on whether and how journal content will be digitally preserved is absent. 11. The article processing/publication charge is very low(e.g., < 150 USD). 12. Journals claiming to be open access either retain copyright of published research or fail to mention copyright. 13. The contact email address is non-professional and non-journal affiliated( e.g., @gmail.com or @ yahoo.com).