scholarly journals Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Woo Jin Son ◽  
Cheol-Heui Yun
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Flow Chart ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Multiple Submission ◽  
Voluntary Withdrawal ◽  
Duplicate Publication ◽  
Current Article

With the goal of improving the publishing ecosystem and promoting transparency in journal publishing, we describe some recent cases in scientific publishing in Korea. The current article summarizes ethical inquiries from domestic journals and publishers, most of whom are members of the Korean Council of Science Editors. We selected 15 representative questions asked during the last 4 years. Those inquiries were classified into hot topics such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, multiple submission, and others (informed consent, copyright, compliance with journal regulations, authors’ responsibilities, and voluntary retraction requests). When plagiarism is suspected, editors and reviewers should assess the situation following the relevant rules and procedures, and if necessary, the manuscript should be rejected. Cases of duplicate publication should be clearly stated in both papers based on the explicit agreement of the editor-in-chief of both journals. As a general rule, the entire content of an article should be published in one issue, but if the article is too long, it may need to be published in two issues. Permission from both journals is required. The abstract and references should be separated accordingly. In cases of copyright conflict, voluntary withdrawal of a paper, or non-compliance with publishing regulations, the manuscript must be withdrawn according to specific procedures (referring to the COPE flow chart). All correspondence regarding a manuscript should be with the corresponding author, who communicates directly with the journal. We hope that these recommendations will help readers in the field of scientific publishing to address issues related to publication ethics.

scholarly journals Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-188
Author(s):  
You Sun Kim ◽  
Dong Soo Han
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review Board Approval ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Duplicate Publication

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

Social Work Research Ethics: Dual Roles and Boundary Issues

2008 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Landau
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Social Control ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Dual Roles ◽  
Social Work Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Boundary Issues

This article reviews ethical issues and dilemmas that arise from the dual roles of the social work researcher: as scientist and as someone who cares for individuals and groups in distress while exercising social control. There is a fair amount of tension between the roles of social worker and social work researcher due to a lack of clear boundaries of the researcher's function. The ethical dilemmas may vary with the framework in which the research is conducted, the participants, and social work researchers themselves. The current article focuses on issues of informed consent, expectations, and anxieties of the research participants, and ethical dilemmas. It ends with suggestions for ethical social work research.

scholarly journals SYSTEMATIZATION OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY BY REGULATORY BODIES AND UNIVERSITIES IN AFRICA: RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Lillian Omutoko
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Holistic Model ◽  
Multiple Submission ◽  
Existing Structures ◽  
Institutional Model

Purpose: Research misconduct is a global ethical concern that imparts negatively on scientific processes and expectations. Other related ethical concerns are academic fraud among researchers in academic institutions.  These activities are against the norms of research and academic practice. Some common occurrences in institutions are multiple submission of papers for publication, use of unauthorized assistance or various forms of dishonesty that occur in relation to any academic exercise. Research integrity is a complex multifaceted task that touches on different phases of research. Institutions in Africa barely have policies and structures to uphold research integrity and where they exist, the enforcement mechanisms are not synchronized. Prevention of research misconduct and enforcement of research integrity policies cannot be the responsibility of any single person or institution, it can only be successful if it is a concerted effort. Universities, national bodies and research ethics committees have a major role to play in maintaining research integrity. The purpose of this paper is to explore and develop a systematic approach to enhance research integrity.  The paper examines common research integrity issues and proposes pragmatic approaches for preventing research misconduct.   Methodology: The methodology employed was desktop document analysis of related journal articles, guidelines and institutional websites.   Case studies of misconduct were reviewed to make sense of types of scientific misconduct that have been recorded in Africa. Results: Institutions can customize the institutional model according to identified needs and existing structures. The proposed framework would be successful if the efforts are implemented within a multi-thronged approach that includes mentorship and capacity building at all levels for creation of an ethical research culture that enhances credibility of research and builds public trust.   Contributions to theory, policy and practice:  It is envisaged that the proposed model will improve enforcement of related policies and promote research integrity. A holistic model to streamline prevention of misconduct and nurture a culture of ethical conduct in research is also recommended. 

scholarly journals Deciphering dimensions of overlapping publications

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 123-128
Author(s):  
Amit Kumar ◽  
Soni Rajput ◽  
Manjunath P. Puranik ◽  
Ankit Mahesh Patel
Keyword(s):  
International Committee ◽  
Academic Growth ◽  
Disciplinary Action ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Duplicate Publication ◽  
Single Dataset ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Research Efficiency

Proving research efficiency and academic growth by the number of publications flag the researchers to publish more articles from a single dataset. They are crossing into unethical practices such as self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and other research misconducts, which warrant disciplinary action against them. The thrust of this review is to draw the attention of the authors, reviewers, editors, and readers toward different dimensions of overlapping publications in research. Various guidelines and ethical bodies such as Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors were considered for the review. The present review provides an expansive outline of publication overlap available in the literature. The reasons for conducting and problems associated with different types of overlapping publications are identified. Preventive and remedial measures as well as recommendations for authors, editors, and reviewers have been highlighted. Because of the strain to “publish or perish” from the researchers’ end, journals are ending up being flooded with overlapping publications.

scholarly journals Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056003
Author(s):  
Tess Legg ◽  
Michél Legendre ◽  
Anna B Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Free World ◽  
Scientific Organisation ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Publishing Practices

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation—the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)—was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder’s scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW’s publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian ‘Centre of Excellence’) and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

scholarly journals Corrigendum / Erratum / Retraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jurnal Al-Iqtishad
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Banking System ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Submission Process ◽  
Financing Risk ◽  
University Of Bahrain ◽  
Double Publication

Retraction to:Sukmana, R. (2018). Determinantf of Credit and Financing Risk: Evidence of Dual Banking System in Indonesia. Al-Iqtishad: Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi Syariah (Journal of Islamic Economics). Vol. 10 (1): 189-206. doi: 10.15408/aiq.v10i1.5903.This article has been retracted by the publisher based on the following reasonThis is based on the author's recognition to the editor that the author has committed acts of violation of publication ethics. The author has published a double publication by submitting the same article to two journals at the same time. The author admits that he forgot to have submitted the same article to another journal. This article also has published in the Journal of Islamic Financial Studies (Publisher: University of Bahrain) Vol. 3 (2), December 2017 (http://journals.uob.edu.bh/jifs/contents/volume-1115/articles/article-5448)This article has followed with the procedures that apply to journal management. The author has received the review results, and has improved the article according to the review result.One of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication in this journal is that authors declare explicitly that their work is original and has not appeared in a publication elsewhere, and also not considered by another journal. As such this article represents a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system. The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter, and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.

scholarly journals Research and publication ethics in developing countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Mohan Raj Sharma ◽  
Namita Ghimire
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Unethical Research ◽  
Duplicate Publication ◽  
Good Quality Research ◽  
Published Research

The scientific validity of any project relies heavily on the ethically conducted and published research work. Conducting good quality research and publishing it in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is the ultimate dream of any researcher. However if not done without any research and publication ethics, the work will be counterproductive. Fortunately, there are several publications on ethics of research and publication guiding an early-stage researcher to follow the underlying principles. Research ethics include upholding the basic ethical principles of human research, namely, respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Publication ethics involve not committing scientific misconduct, resolving authorship disputes, and avoiding simultaneous submission and duplicate publication. Repercussions of unethical research and publications are often unforgiving. Researchers in developing countries face unique challenges in this regard. However, at no cost should these principles be ignored. This will promote the development of a healthy research and publication culture, so desperately needed in these populations. Researchers, sponsors, ethical boards, publishers, and editors should work hand-in-hand to safeguard the research and publication integrity. In this review, issues surrounding research and publication ethics relevant to developing countries will be discussed.

scholarly journals Stress testing journals: a quasi-experimental study of rejection rates of a previously published paper

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Denise Cobey ◽  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Manoj Mathew Lalu ◽  
Daniel Abramowitz ◽  
Nadera Ahmadzai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Duplicate Publication ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Pdf Format

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review. Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher’s PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types. Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N =135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A Chi-Square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ² (4)=23.50, p<0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the publication (133 (45.7%)).Conclusion: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.

scholarly journals MULTILINGUAL PUBLICATION AS A LEGITIMATE TOOL TO INCREASE ACCESS TO SCIENCE (English translated version)

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-17
Author(s):  
Luis Fernando Aragón-Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Original Publication ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Duplicate Publication ◽  
The World ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Multiple Languages

Duplicate publication, including the submission or publication of the same manuscript in two or more languages, is considered scientific misconduct. Meanwhile, properly conducted multilingual publication has been an exception difficult to deal with, rather than part of the normal scientific publishing process. While publication of a manuscript in a second or third language should not receive the same credit as the original publication, it should not be punished. Provided the appropriate disclosures and preliminary steps are taken, it should be highly encouraged instead, as it will enhance scientific communication and may reduce the knowledge gap around the world. Different types of multilingual publications are summarized and some basic guidelines are offered for the sanctioned publication of the same paper in multiple languages. ALSO AVAILABLE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE FROM THIS JOURNAL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document