Research Ethics and Integrity: How COPE can help

Springer Chinese Editors 30.10.19

1. Research Ethics and Integrity: How COPE can help Deborah Kahn, COPE Council Member & Trustee, Global Publishing Director, Taylor & Francis Disclosure: Deborah Kahn receives no form of compensation from COPE for her voluntary role with COPE. Deborah Kahn is employed full time by Taylor & Francis Ltd 30 October 2019 publicationethics.org

2. About COPE COPE activities in China Aspects of publishing ethics Authorship and contributorship Allegations of misconduct Plagiarism and copyright infringement Conflicts of interest Complaints and appeals Questions and answers What I will cover  

3. COPE Council COPE 理事会 40 Council members from 13 countries and a range of disciplines; academic scholars, editors, professionals in publishing and editorships Voluntary role

4. How COPE responds and stays true We deliver resources that support, inform and educate on publication ethics. We lead thinking and advance understanding in publication ethics. We bring a calm, neutral, and professional voice to current debates about publication ethics.

5. COPE assists editors of scholarly journals and publishers - as well as other parties, such as institutions - in their work to preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices. COPE describes these in 10 “Core Practices”. COPE's Core Practices should be considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for research. COPE’s Core Practices https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

6. 1. Allegations of misconduct Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers. 2. A uthorship and contributorship Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes .

7. 3. Complaints and appeals Journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher . 4. Conflicts of interest There must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers, whether identified before or after publication.

8. 5. Data and reproducibility Journals should include policies on data availability and encourage the use of reporting guidelines and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline. 6. Ethical oversight Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices.

9. 7. Intellectual property All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers. Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration. What constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified. 8. Journal management A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential, including the business model, policies, processes and software for efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff.

10. 9. Peer review processes All peer review processes must be transparently described and well managed. Journals should provide training for editors and reviewers and have policies on diverse aspects of peer review, especially with respect to adoption of appropriate models of review and processes for handling conflicts of interest, appeals and disputes that may arise in peer review. 10. Post-publication discussions, corrections Journals must allow debate post publication either on their site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. They must have mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication.

11. https://publicationethics.org/ resources 10 core practices Flowcharts for handling cases of alleged misconduct – all translated into Chinese https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/chinese-all-flowcharts Infographics Best practice guidelines Discussion documents Newsletter, presentation archives COPE Forum cases For members: E-Learning modules Letter templates, Self-audit tool for journals Seminars/workshops and webinars COPE Forum Resources

12. Guidelines

13. COPE and China

14. New Regulations in China 《 关于进一步加强科研诚信建设的若干意见 》 Opinions on Further Strengthening the construction of scientific research integrity issued by General Office of the CPC Central Committee and General Office of the State Council, PRC. on 30th May 2018 《 哲学社会科学科研诚信建设实施办法 》 Measures for the implementation of the construction of scientific research integrity in philosophy and Social Sciences Jointly issued by 7 ministries on 16 th May 2019 《 科技期刊出版伦理规范 》 Code of ethics for publication of scientific and Technological Journals issued by CAST September 2019 《 科研诚信案件调查处理规则（试行） 》 Rules for investigation and handling of integrity cases in scientific research (Trial) jointly issued by 20 Ministries on 11 th October 2019

15. Chinese language guidelines for peer reviewers https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidlines_for_PeerReviewers_Chinese_Web.pdf

16. Chinese language flowcharts https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/chinese-all-flowcharts

17. Chinese Language Newsletter

18. COPE’s 1 st China Seminar 2017, Beijing

19. Chinese language e-learning resources

20. Authorship and Contributorship Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes

21. Authorship case for discussion Case text A journal published a paper that is now under investigation by the host institution for misconduct. All authors signed that they agreed authorship and took responsibility for the content of the paper. After the investigations started, an author asked to be removed from authorship. Question • What should the journal do in this situation?  • Should the journal permit the author to withdraw, or does agreement to authorship have irrevocable responsibilities?

22. Advice from the Forum Consider publishing an expression of concern stating that an investigation on the paper is being conducted but not stating that there is an authorship dispute. Await the outcome of the investigation before making any changes to the paper. The author signed the agreement which means he consented to publication. This means he has a duty to help with the investigation The Forum thought that the editor should not allow removal, but that he could give the dissenting author the option of publishing a comment on the published paper.

23. Allegations of misconduct Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers.

24. Possible areas of Misconduct Research Misconduct Informed Consent Clinical Trial Registration Animal and field studies Standards of reporting Fabrication Falsification Wrong ethical approval Data plagiarism Publication Misconduct Plagiarism and Text recycling Image Manipulation Authorship Issues Duplicate submission and publication Conflict of Interest Fake Peer Review Salami slicing Declaration of Helsinki Institutional Ethical Committee/Institutional Review Board Local laws and regulations International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE) Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) Journal editorial policies

25. https://publicationethics.org/resources/elearning/ 出版伦理介绍 -0

26. Plagiarism and copyright infringement

27. Types of plagiarism https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/how-should-editors-respond-plagiarism-april-2011

28. Case discussion The reviewer of a paper contacts the journal to point out that a large part of a review paper was almost an exact copy of a longer review in a different journal. The editor confirmed this. Although the previous publication was referenced it did not indicate the reproduction of sections of the paper. The corresponding author is a top researcher at a top institution. The first author is on a research scholarship to the institution. It is likely that the co-authors are unaware of the plagiarism The editor of Journal A wrote to the corresponding author to point out the apparent plagiarism and to ask for an explanation. The corresponding author replied, apologising for the error and saying that he would withdraw the paper. He explained that the whole group was at fault for not checking the paper more thoroughly. The author may have found that the language barrier made summarising findings from other papers into his/her own words difficult. There was probably no deliberate intent to copy chunks of the text without acknowledgement as indeed reference was made to the source. The corresponding author would take action regarding present and future submissions from this author. New procedures would also be put into place to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate event. The corresponding author felt that a positive aspect of this incident was that it demonstrated the high calibre of the reviewers, and thanked them for doing such an excellent job. The editor was also thanked for seeking the corresponding author’s views on the matter.

29. Discussion/decision Plagiarism can be accidental This case again demonstrates that all authors/contributors should take responsibility for the work. Decision The editor accepted the author’s reply as a satisfactory response and decided that no further action should be taken.

30. Conflicts of interest “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.”

31. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Discussion_document__on_handling_competing_interests.pdf

32. Complaints and appeals

33. Complaints May arise over the conduct of editors and/or peer reviewers; Include breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed COI, misuse of information, disputes about decisions, irregularities in editorial processes Resources include archive of cases, flowcharts and e-learning modules Principles include importance of handling cases promptly, transparently, fairly and objectively; adhering to the Journal’s stated policy; informing all parties of the process that will be followed and keeping them updated. use of neutral and professional language and avoiding COI in the investigation process

34. Example of complaints procedure https://china.taylorandfrancis.com/authors/peer-review-appeals-and-complaints-from-authors/

35. publicationethics.org Acknowledgements This presentation is based on previous presentations by COPE council members . Presented by: Deborah Kahn COPE Council Member COPE Trustee COPE China 微信群 因人数已达自动入群限制 请先加 Jason Hu 好友 ， 注明身份和 COPE 他会邀请您入群 。 For membership enquiries please contact: [email protected]