Letter from the Editor-in-Chief: Scientists behaving badly (original) (raw)
Related papers
Violation of Publication Ethics: A Growing Concern for Journal Editors
Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute, 2017
Scientific evidence is the basis for progress of medical science and clinical practice. Research findings are disseminated to the scientific community by means of Publication. Publication ethics is the code of conduct & regulatory mechanism being developed for the publication process of scholarly journals. Its aim is to establish and maintain higher standards and scientific integrity. Publication ethics are violated by all those activities which threaten the integrity of the research publication process. These include authors dispute, fake affiliations, conflicts of interest, dual submissions, duplicate publication, plagiarism, salami slicing, fabrication and falsification. It affects the scientific community, journal editors, peer reviewers but the ultimate victims are the patients.
Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors
Revista de Saúde Pública, 2006
Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant intern...
Catalyzing Ethical Behavior among Journal Editors in the Organizational Sciences and Beyond
2014
In recent years, a number of issues and scandals within academic publishing have come to light. Not only have there been the high profile cases of author misconduct (e.g., blatant acts of plagiarism, Balter, 2012; cases involving the faking of data, Enserink, 2011), but issues of editor ethics have also begun to pervade the public discourse. For example, accusations of coercive citations have emerged, in which editors and reviewers request that authors cite specific nonessential works, especially those featured in a given journal, to improve impact factors (Wilhite & Fong, 2012). Similarly, citation cartels (Davis, 2012) have been shown to exist whereby editors collaborate across journals, encouraging citations of articles in each other's journals to boost impact while minimizing self-citation. Indeed, these behaviors undermine both individual research studies as well as the overall credibility of the science (Rupp, 2011).This paper discusses editor ethics and responsibility and...
Reflections on Ethics in Journal Publications
Journal of Academic Ethics, 2009
This paper addresses a number of ethical issues that arise in the context of journal publishing. These include both issues for the researcher and issues for the editors and editorial board members of journals.
Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals
PLoS ONE, 2012
Background: It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.
Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020
Background: There has been an increase in research output from India, which in turn has led to an increase in the number of Indian journals facilitating biomedical research. The instructions to authors in the websites of these journals should clearly display ethics-related guidelines for the ethical publication process. The present study did an objective assessment of "instructions to authors" on the websites of Indian biomedical journals in PubMed and IndMED and retractions in these journals from January 2012 to October 2017. Methods: A 14-point checklist based on previous studies and review of literature was used. A total of 110 journals were included in the study and their websites assessed. Results: A dedicated section on ethics was found in 56 (50.9%) journal websites, 42 (38.2%) did not mention any specific bioethics guidelines, animal ethics was mentioned in 65 (59%) of the journals, and an ethics committee approval was required by 65 (59%) of the journals. Sixty-four (58.2%) journals mentioned mandatory informed consent and 19 (17.3%) required assent. There were 22 (20%) journals that required neither Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) registration nor Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting of clinical trials. There were 38 (34.5%) journals that actively looked for plagiarism. Most common reason for retraction was duplicate publication (23, 38.4%) followed by plagiarism (17,28.3%). Conclusion: The lacunae found in this survey indicate a need for strengthening of author instructions. The number of retractions in the last five years suggests that there are valid reasons to strengthen ethics in the publication process in India.