1 / 23

Publication and Research Misconduct

Publication and Research Misconduct. Stephanie Harriman Deputy Medical Editor. Outline. What ‘misconduct’ do editors encounter? What can editors do in suspected cases? Discussion cases Useful resources. What problems do we classify as “misconduct”?. Plagiarism

rich
Download Presentation

Publication and Research Misconduct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Publication and Research Misconduct Stephanie Harriman Deputy Medical Editor

  2. Outline • What ‘misconduct’ do editors encounter? • What can editors do in suspected cases? • Discussion cases • Useful resources

  3. What problems do we classify as “misconduct”? • Plagiarism • Text recycling (‘self-plagiarism’) • Duplicate/redundant publication • Authorship issues • Disputes, gift authorship, ghost authorship • Data fabrication/falsification • Image manipulation • Undisclosed competing interests • Lack of ethics approval – animal or human • Unethical treatment of participants • Lack of consent

  4. How common is misconduct? • Systematic Review and meta-analysis on fabrication and falsification of results (Fanelli 2009) • 2% admitted to fabrication, falsification or manipulation of results • 14% reported witnessing this behaviour in a colleague • 67.4% of retractions due to misconduct (Fang et al. 2012) • Fraud 43.3%, duplicate publication 14.2%, plagiarism 9.8% • Estimates on prevalence of plagiarism in submitted manuscripts vary • One Chinese journal found ‘unreasonable degrees of copying’ in 22.8% of submitted manuscripts (Zhang 2010) Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE. 2009 4(5):e5738 Fang F, Steen R, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS. 2012 109:42 Zhang H. CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing. 23:9-14

  5. COPE Code of Conduct COPE. Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Journal Editors (March 2011)

  6. http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts

  7. Discussion Cases • Case 1 – Data ownership dispute • Case 2 – Plagiarism/duplicate publication • Case 3 – Ethical concerns

  8. Case 1

  9. A reader emails the Editor regarding an article published in their journal. • The reader claims that the data reported in the article are his and that the corresponding author did not have permission to publish the data. He also claims that the other authors were not involved in the research. He attaches proof of correspondence with the corresponding author prior to publication. • What could the Editor do?

  10. The Editor examines the evidence and contacts the authors for an explanation, copying in all authors to the email. • The corresponding author does not respond, despite several emails. • The other two authors respond: • One asks that the article is retracted and says that the institution will be investigating. • The other asks than an ‘amicable solution is found’ and that the article is not retracted. • What could the Editor do now?

  11. The Editor decides to wait for the outcome of the institutional investigation. • He contacts the institution, asking to be contacted with the results of the investigation. • A temporary ‘Editors Note’ is added to the published article stating that the ownership of the data reported in the manuscript is currently under dispute. • The institutional investigation concludes that the corresponding author did not have ownership of the data or permission to publish it and recommends that the article is retracted.

  12. Case 2

  13. A reader contacts the Editor to say that an article that has recently been published in the journal appears to be very similar to another previous publication by the same authors. • What could the Editor do?

  14. The Editor follows the COPE flowchart on ‘suspected redundant publication in a published article’. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01B_Redundant_Published.pdf

  15. The Editor thanks the reader and says they plan to investigate and looks through both articles side by side and: • Checks the date of publication • Looks how the two articles relate (specifically looking at the results) • Runs cross check to check for any plagiarism from other sources or overlap with other articles by the same authors.

  16. The Editor finds: • The date of publication was later for the article published in their journal. • The manuscript was under consideration at the same time in both journals. • The articles present the same data. • The first article is not cited in the second article and there is no explanation of any overlap. • The original cover letter from the authors declared that the article was not already published and was not under consideration in any other journal. • The cross check report shows large unattributed sections of text plagiarised from a variety of sources.

  17. The Editor contacts all authors neutrally for an explanation, including: • The original cover letter • The duplicate publication policy • Details of the articles there is overlap with • The authors respond unsatisfactorily • What could the Editor do now?

  18. The article is retracted following COPE retraction guidelines with the help of the Biology and Medical Editors. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf

  19. Case 3

  20. A manuscript is submitted describing a study involving human participants. • On initial checks the Editor finds: • There is no rationale for the study. • There is no statement of ethics approval. • The Editor neutrally asks for these and receives a defensive reply from the authors saying that it has approval but they give no rationale for the study. • The Editor asks to see a copy of the ethics approval documentation and is concerned that it is undated and signed by one of the authors. • What could the Editor do?

  21. The Editor looks up ethics approval regulations in the country that the research took place. These say that all studies involving human participants require approval from a national ethics committee. • The Editor asks the authors for further explanation. • The authors do not give a convincing answer and submit the same ethics approval document with a date added. • The Editor expresses their concerns to the authors and contacts the national ethics committee who confirm that ethics approval should have been sought from them. • The Editor does not reject the manuscript and asks the ethics committee to investigate.

  22. Helpful resources • The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) • All of your journals are members of COPE http://publicationethics.org • BioMed Central’s Editorial Policies http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/editorialpolicies • BioMed Central’s Biology and Medical Editors • Can be contacted via your Journal Development Editor (independent journals) or Executive Editor (BMC series) http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/biomededitors • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) http://www.icmje.org/ • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) http://www.wame.org/ • Declaration of Helsinki http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf

  23. Any Questions? stephanie.harriman@biomedcentral.com

More Related