Code of Publishing Ethics

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Keyword(s):  
Publishing Ethics

PEDAGOGY AND MODERN EDUCATION (ICPME) September 2019: сб.науч.тр./ RELF Group & OEAPS Inc.; редкол.: Каапо Кумпулайнен (отв.ред.) [и др.]. - Варшава, Польша : OEAPS Inc., 09. 2019. - 114 С. ISBN: 978-1697070392

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Гульдар Фанисовна Ибрагимова ◽  
Ольга Алексеевна Ковалевич ◽  
Раиса Николаевна Афонина ◽  
Елена Алексеевна Лесных ◽  
Яна Игоревна Ряполова ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
European Academy ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Authorship Credit ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Article Processing Charges

Conference paper Covered by Leading Indexing DatabasesOpen European Academy of Public Sciences aims to have all of its journals covered by the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Scopus and Web of Science indexing systems. Several journals have already been covered by SCIE for several years and have received official Impact Factors. Some life sciencerelated journals are also covered by PubMed/MEDLINE and archived through PubMed Central (PMC). All of our journals are archived with the Spanish and Germany National Library.All Content is Open Access and Free for Readers Journals published by Open European Academy of Public Sciences are fully open access: research articles, reviews or any other content on this platform is available to everyone free of charge. To be able to provide open access journals, we finance publication through article processing charges (APC); these are usually covered by the authors’ institutes or research funding bodies. We offer access to science and the latest research to readers for free. All of our content is published in open access and distributed under a Creative Commons License, which means published articles can be freely shared and the content reused, upon proper attribution.Open European Academy of Public Sciences Publication Ethics StatementOpen European Academy of Public Sciences is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peerreview together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use iThenticate to check submissions against previous publications.Mission and ValuesAs a pioneer of academic open access publishing, we serve the scientific community since 2009. Our aim is to foster scientific exchange in all forms, across all disciplines. In addition to being at the root of Open European Academy of Public Sciences and a key theme in our journals, we support sustainability by ensuring the longterm preservation of published papers, and the future of science through partnerships, sponsorships and awards.

scholarly journals Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. Sivasubramaniam ◽  
M. Cosentino ◽  
L. Ribeiro ◽  
F. Marino
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Institutional Expectations ◽  
Community Impacts ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Research Councils ◽  
Negative Controls

AbstractThe data produced by the scientific community impacts on academia, clinicians, and the general public; therefore, the scientific community and other regulatory bodies have been focussing on ethical codes of conduct. Despite the measures taken by several research councils, unethical research, publishing and/or reviewing behaviours still take place. This exploratory study considers some of the current unethical practices and the reasons behind them and explores the ways to discourage these within research and other professional disciplinary bodies. These interviews/discussions with PhD students, technicians, and academics/principal investigators (PIs) (N=110) were conducted mostly in European higher education institutions including UK, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Netherlands.Through collegiate discussions, sharing experiences and by examining previously published/reported information, authors have identified several less reported behaviours. Some of these practices are mainly influenced either by the undue institutional expectations of research esteem or by changes in the journal review process. These malpractices can be divided in two categories relating to (a) methodological malpractices including data management, and (b) those that contravene publishing ethics. The former is mostly related to “committed bias”, by which the author selectively uses the data to suit their own hypothesis, methodological malpractice relates to selection of out-dated protocols that are not suited to the intended work. Although these are usually unintentional, incidences of intentional manipulations have been reported to authors of this study. For example, carrying out investigations without positive (or negative) controls; but including these from a previous study. Other methodological malpractices include unfair repetitions to gain statistical significance, or retrospective ethical approvals. In contrast, the publication related malpractices such as authorship malpractices, ethical clearance irregularities have also been reported. The findings also suggest a globalised approach with clear punitive measures for offenders is needed to tackle this problem.

scholarly journals A Legal Evaluation of the Legislation Regarding Scientific Research and Publishing Ethics Committees in the Fields of Social and Humanatirian Sciences and Educational Sciences in Universities: A Qualitative Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-280
Author(s):  
murat bülbül
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
State Universities ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Higher Education Law ◽  
Phenomenological Studies ◽  
Educational Sciences ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Document Review

In Article 65 of Higher Education Law numbered 2547, formation, duties and operations of scientific research and publication ethics boards have to be regulated by regulations issued by Higher Education Council (HEC). Despite this legal obligation, ethical committees in higher education institutions are not regulated by regulation; They are regulated by HEC Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (HECSRPED) issued in 2016. Universities also make regulations regarding these boards within their own bodies with directives issued by decisions of their senates. In the research, firstly, the literature on the ethics committees and relevant legislation are examined. Then, categories are determined by using the document review method, considering regulations of ethics committees in HECSRPED; in the context of these categories, directives issued by 3 state universities in İstanbul regarding ethics committees in fields of social and humanities and educational sciences are analyzed. Findings show that provisions of a directive issued by universities on ethics committees generally do not coincide with relevant provisions in HECSRPED and even contain significant contradictions. It has also been discussed that ethical committees in universities may harm the principle of conducting scientific research freely and cause important bureaucratic problems and workload for both researchers and board members. It has been suggested that issues related to ethical committees are regulated by HEC, eliminating illegality in directives issued by universities and that universities can issue directives on issues that are not clarified in HECSRPED. In addition, it was recommended to conduct case studies and phenomenological studies regarding ethics committees for researchers.

scholarly journals Retraction: Radenovic L. Effect of 7-nitroindazole on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in the rat brain following kainate-induced neurotoxicity. Arch biol sci, 2008, 60(1):25-32. DOI: 10.2298/ABS0801025R

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 749-749
Author(s):  
E Editorial
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Rat Brain ◽  
Superoxide Production ◽  
Kainate Receptor ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Intrahippocampal Injection ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Mnsod Activity ◽  
Font Color

This is a notice of retraction of the article: Effect of 7-nitroindazole on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in the rat brain following kainate-induced neurotoxicity, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2008, Vol. 60, Issue 1. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Radenovic L, Selakovic V, Kartelija G, Todorovic N, Nedeljkovic M. Differential effects of NMDA and AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in rat brain following intrahippocampal injection. Brain Res Bull, 2004, 64(1):85-93. The results in the article being retracted were presented as findings obtained from novel research. Inspection of the results has revealed that they were part of research already presented in the original article without appropriate justification or cross-referencing. The Editor-in-Chief considered publishing a notice of redundancy specifying the elements published previously. However, since the original article had already been autoplagiarized by the same corresponding author in the same journal (retraction DOI:10.2298/ABS150318026E), the article is being retracted in accordance with the publishing ethics of the Archives of Biological Sciences in order to preserve the integrity of scientific research. We apologize to the journal's readers that it took so long to notice this error and instigate retraction of the paper. We request our readers to contact the editorial office and editors of the journal directly should similar cases occur in the future, so that the necessary action can be taken more promptly. <br><br><font color="red"><b> Link to the retracted article <u><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/ABS0801025R">10.2298/ABS0801025R</a></b></u>

scholarly journals Increasing transparency in the British Journal of Nutrition

2008 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. Calder
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Journal ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Intellectual Honesty ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Publishing Ethics

Keen readers of the BJN will have noticed the recent appearance of ‘conflict of interest’ statements and of more complete descriptions of the contribution of each author to the publication. I have introduced these innovations in order to increase the transparency of the articles that we publish in the BJN; further strategies to increase accuracy, transparency and accountability of papers published in the journal will follow in order to encourage a climate of intellectual honesty and to decrease the risk of misconduct. In particular, the journal will follow as closely as possible the recommendations and guidelines of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)(1) and of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)(2). COPE and ICMJE have made available a range of guidelines aimed at establishing best practice in scientific publishing. These include guidelines for authors and for the conduct of reviewers, editorial boards and editors. Many of the guidelines are already followed by the BJN, but others are not yet fully in place.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document