Research and Publication Ethics in Science

Research Publication Ethics

1. Research and Publication Ethics Publication Ethics: definition, introduction and importance ● Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME, etc. ● Conflicts of interest ● Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behaviour and vice versa, types , Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributor ship ● Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals ● Predatory publishers and journals Disclaimer: The Content of this presentation is taken from different sources and organized. There are no copyrights reserved.

2. Scientific Knowledge The object of research is to extend human knowledge beyond what is already known. But an individual’s knowledge enters the domain of science only after it is presented to others in such a fashion that they can independently judge its validity

3. Publication Publication is the final stage of research and therefore a responsibility for all researchers. Scholarly publications are expected to provide a detailed and permanent record of research. Because publications form the basis for both new research and the application of findings, they can affect not only the research community but also, indirectly, society at large. Researchers therefore have a responsibility to ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced , and should avoid misleading, selective or ambiguous reporting. Journal editors also have responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of the research literature and these are set out in companion guidelines.

4. Flow diagram of review and publication process for a manuscript submitted to a journal Peer Reviewed

5. Publishing includes: Publishing in peer-reviewed journals and books. UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethic https://ugccare.unipune.ac.in/apps1/home/index Conference presentations (peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed) and/or published in proceedings Posters presented at conferences Reports commissioned by external organizations Promotional reports and materials on research Articles in the popular press and other media Publication in web-based journals and project web sites

6. What is publishable…. Journals like to publish papers that are going to be widely read and useful to the readers Papers that report “ original and significant” findings that are likely to be of interest to a broad spectrum of its readers. Papers that are well organized and well written, with clear statements regarding how the findings relate to and advance the understanding /development of the subject Papers that are concise and yet complete in their presentation of the findings

7. On October 5, 2020, the paper “Discovery of iron-sensing bacterial riboswitches” was published online in the NCB . The publication was announced in an NCBS press release on October 6, 2020. Its listed authors were Siladitya Bandyopadhyay, Susmitnarayan Chaudhury, Dolly Mehta and Arati Ramesh, the last of whom was the group leader and is faculty at the NCBS. July 07, 2021 05:47 pm | Updated 05:47 pm IST - NEW DELHI The Hindu. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, announcing a breakthrough in the field of chemical biology, and published in the prestigious Nature Chemical Biology (NCB), has been retracted as its key findings were manipulated. NCBS lab retracts scientific paper after evidence of data fraud (Image Manipulation).

8. Prof. CNR Rao , Bharat Ratna and Principle Advisor to Prime Minister of India and 3 others in plagiarism row : https://www.deccanherald.com/content/228708/cnr-rao-3-others-plagiarism.html “an overlap by oversight”

9. Chemistry Professor Accused of Plagiarizing More Than 70 Articles. University Executive Council of the Sri Venkateswara University banned their chemistry professor accused of plagiarizing not just one or two research papers, but almost seventy of them. Almost all these research papers were published between the years 2004 to 2007. The institution banned the professor from taking any research guidance along with the upcoming examination works. ( Source:https ://www.chronicle.com/article/indian-chemist-is-found-to-have-plagiarized-and-falsified-articles/) Retracted papers or publications

10. Stanford University Wrote to Late President Apj Abdul Kalam About Prof. B S Rajput’s Plagiarism. In the year 2002, in October, Late President APJ Abdul Kalam received a letter from Stanford University. The letter claimed that physicist; Prof. B S Rajput has blatantly copied from other sources. One of the signatories of this letter was Renata Kallosh . She claimed that an entire research paper of hers has been used without her acknowledgment. Stanford was shocked by the fact the person who committed the heinous act was not punished. During this time, Prof. Rajput was the Vice-Chancellor of Kumaon University . However, after the investigation and after the completion of the investigation, Prof. Rajput has to resign from his post. (Source: https://thewire.in/education/in-india-you-can-plagiarize-and-flourish) Retracted papers or publications

11. Kavya Viswanathan Was Accused of Plagiarism for Her Debut Novel. Harvard student came up with her debut novel, “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life,” only to face a severe accusation of plagiarism. Scholars accuse her of lifting sections from “Sloppy First and Second Helpings,” written by Megan McCafferty. In the year 2006, in Harvard Crimson, the university newsletter there was the publication of the lifting details.  Now, the charges almost ended the career of this author. However, according to her, those similarities were unintentional. None believed her. Her contracts for the few other books were called off and the movie deals that she made. ( Source:https ://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/books/features/5-authors-who-have-been-accused-of-plagiarism/amp_articleshow/58593060.cms) Retracted papers or publications

12. Plagiarism Accusation Against Dr. Sangiliyandi Gurunathan and his Group. The Nov/Dec 2010 edition of the Biotechnology Advances journal brought out a notice that accused Dr. Sangiliyandi Gurunathan and his group of plagiarizing an article on “Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology,” Kalasalingam University. The accusation led to the retraction of the paper from the journal. (Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_India) Retracted papers or publications

13. It is all over the world (Ratio is 2/10000) Science

14. Plagiarism Plagiarism is not a legal offence in india but a violation of moral and ethical norms unlike copyright violation. But let’s get this clear: copyright infringement can still occur even if the source, author, or copyright-holder is cited. It all depends on the context.

15. Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete and marathon runner in excellent health. Eight months ago, he began taking Vioxx. Case Study

16. Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete and marathon runner in excellent health. Eight months ago, he began taking Vioxx. Suddenly, he drops dead of a massive heart attack, which is ruled an arrhythmia by the coroner. Robert had no prior history of heart trouble. Case Study

17. Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete and marathon runner in excellent health. Eight months ago, he began taking Vioxx. Suddenly, he drops dead of a massive heart attack, which is ruled an arrhythmia by the coroner. Robert had no prior history of heart trouble. Case Study

18. Publication ethics: definition, introduction and importance “Greek ethos ‘character’ is the systematic study of value concepts—good, bad, right, wrong and the general principles that justify applying these concepts”. Ethics is the disciplined study or morality….and morality asks the question…what should one’s behavior be”. Morality refers to a code of conduct that is accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions, including the condition of being rational. Publication ethics is a standard of conducts that guides the researcher to act responsibly and follow set of guidelines for publishing their research. Aim of research publications is to add to existing knowledge for the betterment of society. Unethical practice in research to meet peer pressure/promotion etc. publication pressure etc. So Research Ethics / Publication Ethics in Simple terms “do’s and don’ts” in Science.

19. Establish the credibility of a researcher and the output Addition in the existing knowledge Real benefits to the society and Research satisfaction Why is this so important?

20. Basically, there are two types of ethics Descriptive Ethics: which asks W hat does the culture or society believe is morally correct? Prescriptive Ethics: Which asks: How should I behave as a researcher? What character traits should I cultivate?

21. What does this have to do with research? Ethics is about creating a mutually respectful relationship with the research population. An ethically insensitive researcher can leave the research setting in pandemonium/ Chaos the researcher the institution the cause that he/she seeks to promote

22. Misleading Inconclusive Biased Scientists involved in the intense and demanding enterprise of research… often overlook the interests and perspectives of the research subject. Subjects may respond with lies and subterfuge . Failure to treat subjects with respect can result in data that is:

23. Research Ethics Six Norms of Scientific Research Valid research design – takes into account relevant theory, methods, and prior findings. Competence of researcher – capable to carry out the procedures. Identification of consequences – assessment of risks and benefits (maximizing benefit and minimizing risk). Selection of subjects – appropriate to the purposes of the study, representative of the population that will benefit from the research and appropriate in number. Voluntary informed consent – obtained before study begins, without undue threat or inducement, with enough information, and agreement to participate. Compensation for injury – responsibility for what happens to the subject (federal law requires that subjects be informed about compensation, but does not require compensation).

24. “The public’s perception of research, its benefits and its risks is shaped by the way research is conducted”. Dunn & Chadwick, 1999

25. Case Study A graduate student plans to compare drug use among college freshers and seniors. Because she may want to reinterview some subjects later, she plans to write their names and phone numbers on their data sheets . She plans to promise confidentiality, so that subjects will trust her , and to keep the data in her dorm room in a locked file.

26. Reasons for Unethical research Peer pressure Inadequate training or improper guidance and supervision Lack of awareness Difficulty on data collection

27. Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME, etc.

28. The  Committee on Publication Ethics  (COPE), the  Directory of Open Access Journals  (DOAJ), the  Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association  (OASPA), and the  World Association of Medical Editors  (WAME) are scholarly organizations that have collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly publications . This is the fourth version of a work in progress (published September 15, 2022). The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing should apply to all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings. Any deviation from the standards outlined, editors must transparently communicate the procedures that the journal follows. Publishers and editors are also responsible for promoting accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of the publication. Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit. They should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Journals should ensure no policies create an exclusionary environment for anyone wanting to engage with the journal and should regularly assess their policies for inclusivity.

29. The  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)   is a forum for editors of peer-reviewed journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record. It supports and encourages editors to report, catalogue and instigate investigations into ethical problems in the publication process. Enlisting journals in COPE ensures that journal editors have an alternative source to refer to when dealing with publishing ethics issues. History: COPE was founded in 1997 by a group of medical journal editors Originally a loose gathering of individuals COPE is now a limited company ("incorporated") and registered charity ("not-for-profit organisation "). Role: When a complaint is raised, COPE does not attempt to investigate, nor to offer judgment on, the rights or wrongs of specific allegations of research or publication misconduct. COPE’s investigations and reports are therefore focused solely on whether the journals involved behaved according to the  COPE code of conduct and best practice guidelines for editors . Cases: COPE members can bring cases to the quarterly COPE Forum for advice. The COPE Forum meets in London, UK and is open to members and appropriate guests. Invitations and minutes (including advice and follow-up information on all cases discussed) are circulated to all COPE members. Members who are signed in, are invited to  submit a case  in advance, which are anonymised before circulation and then discussed during the Forum, with advice given on appropriate action. All cases submitted to the Forum (suitably anonymised and without any information about the submitting journal) are entered into the  Database .

30. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ,  http://www.doaj.org/ ) The mission of the DOAJ is: to curate, maintain and develop a source of reliable information about open access scholarly journals on the web; to verify that entries on the list comply with reasonable standards; -to increase the visibility, dissemination, discoverability and attraction of open access journals; -to enable scholars, libraries, universities, research funders and other stakeholders to benefit from the information and services provided; -to facilitate the integration of open access journals into library and aggregator services; -to assist, where possible, publishers and their journals to meet reasonable digital publishing standards; and -to thereby support the transition of the system of scholarly communication and publishing into a model that serves science, higher education, industry, innovation, societies and the people. About the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA,  http://oaspa.org/ ) The OASPA is a trade association that was established in 2008 in order to represent the interests of Open Access (OA) publishers globally in all scientific, technical and scholarly disciplines. This mission will be carried out through exchanging information, setting standards, advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of innovation.

31. WAME i s a global nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster cooperation and communication among editors; improve editorial standards; promote professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation; and encourage research on the principles and practice of medical editing. Principles of Transparency Peer review process:  Journal content must be clearly marked as whether peer reviewed or not. Governing body:  Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors shall be provided on the journal’s Web site. Editorial team/contact information:  Journals shall provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal’s Web site as well as contact information for the editorial office. Author fees:  Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission. Copyright:  Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct:  Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. —the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.

32. Ownership and management:  Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the journal’s Web site. Web site:  A journal’s Web site shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards. It must not contain misleading information, including any attempt to mimic another journal/publisher’s site. Name of journal:  The journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other journals. Conflicts of interest:  A journal shall have clear policies on handling potential conflicts of interest of editors, authors, and reviewers and the policies should be clearly stated. Access:  The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay per view fees shall be stated. Revenue sources:  Business models or revenue sources ( eg , author fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and organizational support) shall be clearly stated on the journal’s Web site. Advertising:  Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant, including what types of ads will be considered, who makes decisions regarding accepting ads and whether they are linked to content or reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at random. Publishing schedule:  The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be clearly indicated. Archiving:  A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via CLOCKSS or PubMed Central) in the event a journal is no longer published shall be clearly indicated. Direct marketing:  Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive.

33. Violation if any…. In the event that a member organization is found to have violated these best practices, or other specific requirements of the organization, OASPA/DOAJ/COPE/WAME shall in the first instance try to work with them in order to address any concerns that have been raised. In the event that the member organization is unable or unwilling to address these concerns, their membership in the organization may be suspended or terminated. All of the member organizations have procedures for dealing with concerns raised about member journals.

34. Springer Publication ethics Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. It is important to avoid: Data fabrication and falsification: Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but faked the data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but then changed some of the data. Plagiarism: Taking the ideas and work of other scientists without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism—use your own words instead. Multiple submissions: It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of the authors and the journals if published in more than one journal as the later publication will have to be retracted. Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications): This means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one very robust paper is more likely to be of interest to a selective journal. Editors are likely to reject a weak paper that they suspect is a result of salami slicing. Improper author contribution or attribution: All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the paper. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has detailed guidelines on authorship that are useful for scientists in all fields:  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors . Many journals have tools and processes in place to identify researchers that engage in unethical behavior. If you are caught your manuscript may be rejected without review and your institution informed.

35. Willeys Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Aims and scope These guidelines present a further update to the Wiley publishing ethics guidelines first published in 2006 and revised in 2014. Our aim for these guidelines remains to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a summary of best practice guidance with respect to research integrity and publishing ethics from leading organizations around the world. Our guidelines are written for researchers, in their various roles as editors, authors and peer reviewers; societies; librarians; funders; corporations; publishers; and journalists. In updating and expanding the guidelines, we worked with members of Wiley’s Integrity and Publishing Group (IPG) with expertise in handling issues in research integrity and publishing ethics. We recognize that different disciplines have different practices and that one size does not necessarily fit all. Where guidelines have particular application to one discipline or group of disciplines, we have aimed to identify this clearly in the text. This version was published on April 17, 2020. It was updated on December 14, 2020 to reflect updates to author name changes and on June 30, 2021 to include a section on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and guidance for research on plants and geological samples. A further update to guidance on corrections was added September 26, 2022.

36. COPE ; C O M M I T T E E O N P U B L I C A T I O N E T H I C S CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS 1 . General duties and responsibilities of editors 1.1. Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals. This means the editors should 1.2. strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; 1.3. strive to constantly improve their journal; 1.4. have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish; 1.5. champion freedom of expression; 1.6. maintain the integrity of the academic record; 1.7. preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; 1.8. always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. Best Practice for Editors would include actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers) supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

37. 2. Relations with readers 2.1. Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was. Best practice for editors would include: ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate) ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. MIAME,1 CONSORT2) considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the origin of non-research articles adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. listings accurately who did the work and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors) informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

38. 3. Relations with authors 3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publicatio n should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal . 3.2. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission. 3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified. 3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published , and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes. 3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. 3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. Best practice for editors would include: reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission , if these are well-reasoned and practicable being guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

39. 4. Relations with reviewers 4.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. 4.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. 4.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers. Best practice for editors would include: encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation) encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches) sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

40. 5.Relations with editorial board members 5.1. Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments. Best practice for editors would include : having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board 6. Relations with journal owners and publishers 6.1. The relationship of editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence . 6.2. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher. 6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher. 6.4. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editor

41. 7. Editorial and peer review processes 7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. 7.2. Editors should ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review. Best practice for editors would include: ensuring that people involved with the editorial process receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected 8. Quality assurance 8.1. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish , recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards. Best practice for editors would include: systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text ) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT2 rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

42. 9. Protecting individual data 9.1. Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction . Protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). May Publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication. Best practice for editors would include: publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors 10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals) 10.1. Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research , the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research). 10.2. Editors should seek. research ethics committee, institutional review board assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body ( e.g ) where one exists. However, editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical. Best practice for editors would include: being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki8, Good Clinical Practice

43. 11. Dealing with possible misconduct 11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them . This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. 11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. 11.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable. 11.4. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate. 11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty. 12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record 12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. 12.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions15. Best practice for editors would include: taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered) ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central) having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available 13. Intellectual property 13.1. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions . Best practice for editors would include: adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised) supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

44. Conflicts of interest 17.1. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. 17.2. Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review Best practice for editors would include: publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)

45. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

46. INTRODUCTION A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal interests-family, friendships, financial, or social factors-could compromise his or her judgement, decisions, or actions in the workplace. Conflict of interest is common issue in the workplace. Most of us have heard someone say, It’s who you know .’’ Conflict of interest are a clash occurs between requirements and interests . Various type of conflict of interest can occur because of nature of relationships versus rules of organisation or federal and state laws. Conflict of interest is both a straightforward and a complex matter . Six principles of conflict resolution ; affiliate, empathize , engage, own, self-restrain and build trust .

47. IMPORTANT ASPECTS An important aspect of conflict of interest is that it’s self-serving . It involves someone prioritizing their interests and gains over others. Someone who’s self-serving overlooks every other aspect of a situation and makes a decision for the sole purpose of personal gain. Difference of Opinion : A conflict generally arises in situation where there are opposing views Competing loyalties when you have an invested interest in many places because the employee can misuse important information any one of organisation. When your personal interests overshadow the interests of the organisation, it results in a conflict. Unethical practice may arise conflict of interest

48. Some common situations: Hiring an unqualified friend or relative to fill a position instead of most qualified candidate. Preferentially awarding a government contract to known organisation. Performing part-time for a competitor organisation. A famous conflict of interest took place in1967 when a group of Harvard scientists were paid to publish a paper that minimised the relationship between heart health and sugar consumption.

49. CAUSES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

50. Two categories; Pecuniary interest-( potential or actual financial gain) Non-Pecuniary interest-(family or personal involvement) Identifying types of conflicts of interest Actual conflict of interest Perceived conflict of interest Potential conflict of interest TYPES

51. TYPES OF CONFLICT

52. CURRENT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO INVESTIGATORS A standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analyses, and reporting of clinical trials. T hat provides assurance that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of study subjects are protected. Investigators will  collect evidence, search, interview, interrogate and apply various investigation methods. The successful candidate will be able to employ modern scientific techniques in order to determine and illuminate the truth about how a crime occurred. An ethical investigator will  avoid the use of any and all illegal means in conducting an investigation or any aspect of an investigation . Any and all procedures which violate the rights of the individual will be strictly abhorred. The ethical investigator will also strictly avoid such practices.

53. INVESTIGATOR RESPONSEIBILITIES Record keeping and retention An investigator is responsible for Maintaining adequate records Accurate case history that records all observation Other data to investigate individual

54. MANAGING CONFLICT OF INTEREST Managing conflict of interest requires a balance p rohibiting unacceptable forms of private interest . Raising awareness of the circumstances in which conflicts can arise. Building capacities to prevent conflict of interest through training. E nsuring effective procedures to resolve conflict-of-interest situations . 5 conflict management strategies According to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), used by human resource (HR) professionals around the world, there are five major styles of conflict management ; Collaborating Competing Avoiding Accommodating Compromising

55. 7 Steps to Conflict Resolution Set a Discussion Time Invite a Third Party Figure Out the Main Issue Establish Common Goals Discuss how to Meet Goals Agree on a Way Forward Determine Resolution Roles

56. To Sum- up Conflict of interest is a complicated ethical and professionalism area . T he advent of the Internet and digital technology has magnified how complicated it is. The first step is awareness of the issue and the ability to identify potential conflicts. If health-care professionals are going to express a professional opinion online or advocate for any cause, including own financial gain, we need to identify ourselves and our professional role. In the years to come, health-care and academic medical institutions are likely to develop guidelines for the appropriate use of the Internet in this regard .

57. Publication misconduct Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behaviour and vice versa, types

58. I’m a good person . Why do I need to worry about research ethics? 65

59. • It’s true that we can’t do much about the bad person who is determined to do evil things. • However, research ethics isn’t just – or even mostly - about bad people doing bad things. • It’s also about imperfect people doing imperfect things, for a variety of reasons. 66

60. Professional Pressures : • Publish or perish • Tenure/retaining a job • “Keeping up” with peers • Securing grants • Being first to a discovery 67

61. Publication misconduct Publishing should not become an end process of research but it makes a positive impact in the development of knowledge. Any unethical behavior relating to the publishing is called publishing misconduct . 68

62.   Publication misconduct includes: 69

63. Publication misconduct makes all the efforts, time and money spent on research in vane and leads to detrimental effects with a high possibility of not repairable damages in the research world. If research was done wholeheartedly with academic honesty, it would lead to development of world as well as knowledge accumulation. 70

64. Mostly societal issues demand most immediate and honest research outputs which are not met by plagiarised research publications and leads to loss of trust and confidence in the science community. When the course syllabus is concerned many of the educational courses are compelling students to publish articles during courses and may follow unscientific methods of publishing and are becoming victims of publication misconduct for the whole life. 71

65. 1. Plagiarism Plagiarism is one of the most dangerous misconducts in research. It is the adoption of another person's thoughts, ideas, data, figures, research methods, or words without giving proper credit to the work, or the over-citation of another person's published work. 72

66. There are different types of plagiarism : Direct plagiarism 73

67. Self Plagiarism 74

68. Mosaic Plagiarism Poorly paraphrases a statement , but there work has a similar sentence structure to the original work 75

69. Accidental Plagiarism 76

70. 2. Fabrication : Without properly performing the research work, if a researcher is manipulating the data and result, it is called fabrication. It will mislead the readers about the findings. 77

71. 3.Falsification : Falsification is the practice of changing data or results intentionally such that a misleading conclusion is drawn. It is the changing or omission of research results to support claims, hypotheses, and other data. it includes the manipulation of research instrumentation, materials, or processes. 78

72. 4.Duplicate submission/multiple submissions : It refers to the practice of submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts with minor differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract, author order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two or more journals at the same time, or submitting to another journal within an agreed or stipulated period. 79

73. 5 . Overlapping publication: Overlapping publication refers to the practice of publishing a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published. 80

74. 6. Salami publication : Salami publication refers to the practice of slicing data from a large study, could have been reported in a single paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or more articles, all of which cover the same population, methods, and question 81

75. 7.Redundant Publication: It is the publication of a paper which is similar to a published paper by the same author. He does this without acknowledging the source. It is an example of ‘poor scholarship’ and the study contributes very less. It is turned to be a wastage to the editor and reviewer in every way. 82

76. 8.Gift authorship The main author or first author creates the idea, plans, carry outs the work and writes the paper. Gift authors are the ones which are included as co-authors but not have significantly or not at all contributed to the work presented in the paper. This may be done in order to get grants, sponsors, good grades etc. Sometimes these may be your senior colleagues, supervisors or heads of the departments. In the era of “publish or perish”, under the pressure of increasing the count of publication these influential people get themselves listed as co-authors. 83

77. 9.Ghost Authorship Ghost author means the one who has participated in the study, analysis, experimentation and even in publication draft writing but are not named under the author list. Especially this occurs in case the ghost author is your junior colleague who contributed in all aspects till publication but he is neither listed in the author list nor in the acknowledgement. 84

78. 10.Citation manipulation Many times authors include the citations whose mere purpose is to increase number of citations to the given author’s work. Author should also refrain themselves from excessive citing of their own previous work or their friends, colleague’s or institution’s publications if they have not actually read. Researchers must also avoid copying the references from other publications if they have not gone through the cited work . 85

79. Reason of Publication Misconduct 86

80. Consequence of Publication Misconduct It could lead to the end of career as a researcher. He may be dismissed and rejected. Academic achievement may be taken away. It means a huge loss of fund, time, reputation to the editor and reviewer as well as the researcher. Destroy the public trust on researchers because people in general have lot of faith on the researchers. 87

81. STEPS TO AVOID PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT Provide academic freedom Follow ethical principles Self-certification of articles should be made when they are submitting for publication. Report of plagiarism checking software should be made compulsory. Authors of different articles should keep their publications on institutional repositories. Do not give unnecessary focus on Publishing and journal impact factors 88

82. Editors should Ensure the quality of published material Publish descriptions of peer review and appeals processes Publish corrections and apologies where necessary Retract fraudulent or erroneous articles Ensure research articles conform to ethical guidelines Maintain confidentiality of submitted material Keep editorial and commercial decisions separate Declare their own and other people's conflicts of interest Deal properly with complaints Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated 89

83. Reviewer should: Not “use” data / ideas reported in the manuscript Not communicate directly with authors Provide an honest, critical assessment Provide specific suggestions for improvement Always avoid any conflict of interest (if in doubt, consult with the editor) Help the editors reach a decision on a paper: by recommending Accept / (minor/major) Revision / Reject.  (Keep in mind: the reviewer  recommends,  the editor  decides !) by writing a reviewer report for authors that is in line with the recommendation to the editor Only accept manuscripts for review…. in your area of expertise when you can complete the review on time 90

84. Sum up Publication of research work is very much important. The published work helps the young researchers to enrich their knowledge . They gather information from that .But there is research ethics . All researchers must be aware of that standard procedure to avoid publication misconduct . As discussed researchers are found guilty and they have been deregistered and their papers are being retracted. The misconducts have immense impact. So Govt. and Research Institutes must enforce effective policies to guide research studies across the world 91

85. Identification of Publication Misconduct, Complaints and Appeals 92

86. Publication Misconduct Scientific misconduct...is a continuum ranging from honest errors to outright fraud. 93

87. Types of misconduct 1.) Plagiarism : Appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data, figures, research methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or the over-citation of another person's published work. 2.) Fabrication : The practice of making up data or results without having performed relevant research. 3.) Falsification : The practice of changing data or results intentionally such that misleading conclusion is drawn. 4.) Inappropriate authorship : Authorship is not appropriately assigned based on the author's contributions. 5.) Duplicate submission/multiple submissions : submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts with minor differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract, author order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two or more journals at the same time. 6.) Overlapping publication : The practice of publishing a paper overlaps substantially with one already published. 7.) Salami publication : slicing data from a large study, could have been reported in a single paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or more articles, all of which cover the same population, methods, and question. 94

88. Complaints & Appeals 95

89. What is Complaints? Any type of unhappiness or dissatisfaction regarding the publication and policies of the journal. May due to long delay in publication and replies. May be about the decision of editorial board members or chief editor regarding the manuscript of the author. Rude response or misjudgment of the editorial board. 96

90. Complaints & Appeals The authors have right to complaint and ask explanation if they perceived any misconduct in any applicable policies and ethical guidelines. The rejection of a paper the author may appeal to the editor. Authors have the right to appeal an editor’s decision on the article. All appeals are sent to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who will assess your article and the details of the peer review process before the final decision. 97

91. Type Of Complaints Complaints about plagiarism 98 Duplicate publication or submitting the article to various journal Research result misappropriation Complaints regarding the research errors and fraud Violation of research standards Conflicts of interest Bias behavior of reviewers no informed consent on human subjects, or that  animal protection protocols

92. Appeals Appeals are considered against the editor’s decision only under highly specific circumstances and usually only where a clear breach of policy can be demonstrated. 99 How to make a Complaint? Complaints are generally dealt by the editorial staff wherever possible, with reference to policies and guideline, but can escalated to the Editors where necessary. Editor has the right to consult third party over the issue and make final decision.

93. Complaint to EB

94. Complaint to the Editor

95. Appeals Process Any appeals against the Editors decision must be made by e mail within two weeks of decision. Detail explanation of disagreement and supporting information. Appeal is acknowledged within five working days The appeal is handled by the editor who is not in original decision The handling editor make recommendation to reject the appeal, or uphold the appeal aim to resolve within four weeks. The editors decision is final and will not considered further on same ground. 102

96. PREDATORY PUBLISHERS AND JOURNALS

97. WHAT IS PREDATORY PUBLISHER ? “ A predatory publisher is an opportunistic publishing venue that exploits the academic need to publish but offers little reward for those using their services ” . Predatory Publisher

98. Predatory publishers run online journals that will accept almost any papers submitted. They provides false information about impact factors ( IF ) on their journal websites They offer little in terms of copy editing or paper review. Features of Predatory publisher

99. What is a predatory journal ? “ A predatory journal is a publication that asks to a researchers for manuscripts .“ They have no paper review system and no true editorial board . They generally found to publish worthless papers. They also ask for huge publication charge

100. Goals of Predator Publishers

101. What should we do ? Are you Submitting your research to a Trusted journals ?

102. Think ! Because Publishing our research results is key to advancing our discipline and our career ……..But there are so many journals in our field, how can we sure that we are choosing a reputable journals ?

103. Conformed your Publication & Journals You should follow the three steps to conformation of your Publication and Journals…… Think… ! Check… Submit Tips to conform a journals credentials and decide if It will help you to reach the right audience with your research and make an impact on your career.

104. THINK… ! Are you submitting your research to a trusted journals? Is it right journal for your work? New journals are launched each weak . More research is being published worldwide. Stories of publisher malpractice and deception are also on the rise. It can be challenging to find up-to-date guidance when choosing where to publish. How can you be sure the journal you are choosing is the right journals for your research?

105. Check… Reference this list for your chosen journal to check if it is trusted. Have you read any articles in the journals in which you are going to submit your research Is it easy to discover the latest papers in the journals ? Can you easily identify and contact the publisher ? Is the journals clear about the types of peer review it uses? Have you heard of the editorial board members? Do the editorial board mention the journal on their own websites? Is it clear what fee will be charged? And does the journal site explain their fees and when they will be charged?

106. Submit If you can answer “YES” to most of the questions on the list…. If you get answer “YES” Than… Complete the check list and submit your article only if you are happy you can answer ‘YES’ to most of the questions. You need to be confident your chosen journal will have to suitable among your peers to enhance your reputation and your chance of gaining citations. Publishing in the right journals for your research will raise your professional profile, and help you progress in your career.

107. Main Publication Houses Springer Nature Elsevier Wiley Oxford Sage Frontiers (Open Access) PlosOne Society Journals

108. Journal finder

109. Research Metrics Journal Impact Factor Research metrics are measures used to quantify the influence or impact of scholarly work. Some examples of this are bibliometrics (methods to analyze and track scholarly literature), citation analysis, and altmetrics (a more recent set of alternative methods that attempt to track and analyze scholarship through various digital media.) The development of electronic indexes, Science Citation Index (1963) and Social Sciences Citation Index (1973), that traced citations to scholarly articles led to an offshoot database, Journal Citation Reports (1975), that displayed the journal impact factor. The journal impact factor is a widely used research metric though its use is often criticized.

110. h-Index • [Jorge Hirsch] • Jorge Hirsch in 2005 published a methodology called the h-index as a citation-based measure of a scholars total output. This has become a required measure in some fields. • For example, if an author has five publications, with 9, 7, 6, 2, and 1 citations (ordered from greatest to least), then the author's h-index is 3, because the author has three publications with 3 or more citations . However , the author does not have four publications with 4 or more citations

111. g-Index • The g-index is an author-level metric suggested in 2006 by Leo Egghe. • The index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications, such that given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g- index is the unique largest number such that the top g articles received together at least g2 citations. • Hence, a g-index of 10 indicates that the top 10 publications of an author have been cited at least 100 times (102), a g-index of 20 indicates that the top 20 publications of an author have been cited 400 times (202).

112. i10-index • The i10-index indicates the number of academic publications an author has written that have been cited by at least 10 sources. • It was introduced in July 2011 by Google as part of their work on Google Scholar.

113. Research Profile • ORCID, which stands for Open Researcher and Contributor ID, is a global, not-for-profit organization • https://info.orcid.org/benefits-for-researchers/

114. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer- reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyze and visualize research. • https://www.scopus.com/freelookup/form/author.uri • https://www.researcherid.com/#rid-for-researchers