scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

scholarly journals A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Engineering Ethics ◽  
The Body ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research System ◽  
Science And Engineering ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Research On Research

AbstractIn the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity.To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact.We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.A word from the authorsWe find important to mention that this manuscript underwent peer review and was rejected from the following journals:PLOS ONESubmitted 19th December 2017Peer-review and rejection received 26th June 2018.Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics (JSEE)Submitted 18th August 2018Peer-review response with major revision request received 9th September 2019Revision submitted 24th October 218Rejection received 27th December 2018We regret not having submitted this preprint before our first submission. Nonetheless, now after over one year in submission processes, we thought that we should make this manuscript and its data available as a pre-print before undergoing further submissions.In order to promote transparency however, we asked both journal whether anonymous reviews could be added alongside this pre-print to ensure that readers are informed of the issues that disqualified our manuscript.PLOS ONE agreed for us to share the anonymous reviews which are now available — together with our itemized changes and responses — in the ‘Online Resource 5 – Peer Review Report’. We thank the editors of the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics and the integrity team of Springer Nature for thoroughly discussing our request, but unfortunately, given the closed peer review policy at Springer Nature, we were unable to provide information about the peer review from the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics.We advise our readers to look at the peer-review and be aware of the challenges and limitations attached with our work. Of course, we welcome comments and contributions to make our work better.Sincerely,Noémie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten

scholarly journals Cooperation And Liaison Between Universities And Editors (CLUE): Recommendations On Best Practice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
Sabine Kleinert ◽  
Michele Garfinkel ◽  
Volker Bähr ◽  
Ksenija Baždarić ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Data ◽  
World Conference ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
The World ◽  
Data Fabrication ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Published Research

Journals and research institutions have common interests regarding the trustworthiness of research publications but their specific roles and responsibilities differ. These draft recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between journals and institutions about possible and actual problems with reported research. The proposals will be discussed at various meetings including the World Conference on Research Integrity in May 2017. We will also consider comments and suggestions posted on this preprint. The main recommendations are that: -- National registers of individuals or departments responsible for research integrity at institutions should be created; -- Institutions should develop mechanisms for assessing the validity of research reports that are independent from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; -- Essential research data and peer review records should be retained for at least 10 years; -- While journals should normally raise concerns with authors in the first instance, they also need criteria to determine when to contact the institution before, or at the same time as, alerting the authors in cases of suspected data fabrication or falsification to prevent the destruction of evidence; -- Anonymous or pseudonymous allegations made to journals or institutions should be judged on their merit and not dismissed automatically; -- Institutions should release relevant sections of reports of research trustworthiness or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was the subject of the investigation.

KETIDAKEFEKTIFAN KEBIJAKAN ANTI-DUMPING PRODUK IMPOR BAJA INDONESIA: SEBUAH ANALISIS AWAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-168
Author(s):  
Aditya Paramita Alhayat
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
Trade Patterns ◽  
Safeguard Measures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Government

Meskipun Indonesia telah mengenakan tindakan anti-dumping terhadap beberapa jenis produk baja, namun impor produk tersebut masih meningkat. Salah satu kemungkinan penyebabnya adalah importasi melalui produk yang dimodifikasi secara tidak substansial atau melalui negara ketiga yang tidak dikenakan tindakan anti-dumping, yang dalam perdagangan internasional umum disebut sebagai praktik circumvention. Studi ini ditujukan untuk membuktikan bahwa circumvention mengakibatkan tindakan anti-dumping atas impor produk baja Indonesia tidak efektif dan untuk memberikan masukan berdasarkan praktik di negara lain supaya kebijakan anti-dumping Indonesia lebih efektif. Circumvention dianalisis dengan membandingkan pola perdagangan antara sebelum dan setelah pengenaan bea masuk anti-dumping (BMAD) menggunakan data sekunder dari Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) maupun Global Trade Information Services (GTIS). Hasil analisis menunjukkan adanya indikasi kuat bahwa circumvention mengkibatkan pengenaan tindakan anti-dumping impor produk baja di Indonesia menjadi tidak efektif. Oleh karena itu, sangat penting bagi Pemerintah Indonesia untuk segera melakukan penyempurnaan terhadap Peraturan Pemerintah No. 34/2011 tentang Tindakan Antidumping, Tindakan Imbalan, dan Tindakan Pengamanan Perdagangan dengan memasukkan klausul tindakan anti-circumvention yang setidaknya mencakup bentuk-bentuk dan prosedur tindakan, sebagaimana yang telah dilakukan beberapa negara seperti: AS, EU, Australia, dan India. Although Indonesia has imposed anti-dumping measures on several types of steel products, the import of steel products is still increasing. One possible cause is that imports are made by non-substantial modification of product or through a third country which is not subject to anti-dumping measures, which is generally referred as circumvention practice. This study is aimed to prove that circumvention made Indonesian anti-dumping actions on the steel products ineffective. This also study provides recommendation for a best practice for other countries so that Indonesia's anti-dumping policy can be more effective. Circumvention was analyzed by comparing trade patterns between before and after the imposition of anti-dumping duty using secondary data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) and the Global Trade Information Services (GTIS). The results of the analysis indicate that circumvention became the reason why Indonesian anti-dumping measures on imported steel products are ineffective. Therefore, it is very important for the Government of Indonesia to immediately make amendments to the Government Regulation No. 34/2011 on Antidumping, Countervailing, and Safeguard Measures by adopting clauses of anti-circumvention. This can be done bycovering the forms/types and procedures of action, as has been implemented by several countries such as the US, EU, Australia, and India.

scholarly journals Impact of the 2017 Child and Adult Care Food Program Meal Pattern Requirement Change on Menu Quality in Tribal Early Care Environments: The Food Resource Equity and Sustainability for Health Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 12-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan B Sisson ◽  
Kaysha Sleet ◽  
Rachel Rickman ◽  
Charlotte Love ◽  
Alexandria Bledsoe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Food Resource ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Healthy Weight ◽  
Early Care ◽  
Adult Care ◽  
Nutrient Analysis ◽  
Before And After

ABSTRACT Background Native American (NA) children have a high prevalence of obesity contributing to lifespan health disparities. Dietary intake is important to promote healthy weight gain, growth, and development. In 2017, the USDA enforced changes to the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The CACFP provides reimbursement to qualifying Early Care and Education (ECE) programs that serve foods that uphold the program's nutrition requirements. Objective This study had the following 2 objectives: 1) Describe a novel index to evaluate ECE menus based on revised CACFP requirements (accounting for food substitutions) and best practices for 3- to-5-y-old children, and 2) analyze CACFP requirement and best practice compliance and nutrient changes in 9 NA ECE programs before and after enforcement of the revised CACFP requirements. Methods This longitudinal study is within a larger community-based participatory research study. Menus and meals served were evaluated for 1 wk at each of 9 programs before and after enforcement of the revised meal patterns. Nutrient analysis, CACFP requirement and best practice compliance, and substitution quality were evaluated. Differences were determined using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon matched test. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03251950. Results Total grams of fiber consumed increased (5.0 ± 1.2 compared with 5.9 ± 0.8 g, P = 0.04) and total grams of sugar consumed decreased (53.8 ± 12.6 compared with 48.4 ± 7.9 g, P = 0.024), although room for further improvement exists. Although total grams of fat remained unchanged, grams of saturated fat significantly increased (7.8 ± 1.4 compared with 10.5 ± 3.4, P = 0.041). Other nutrients remained unchanged. Overall CACFP requirement and best practice compliance scores improved, although this finding was not statistically significant. No significant changes in food quality associated with substitutions occurred. Conclusions This study provides early evidence to support the beneficial impact of the revised CACFP requirements. Understanding barriers to compliance within rural NA communities would be an important next step in enhancing the health of vulnerable children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document