|
Dealing with Ethical
Misconduct
in Biomedical Publications
Excerpts from the presentation by
Dr. Arash Etemadi MD, PhD*
Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) has published guidelines on Good Publication Practice which are
updated from time to time. COPE (www.publicationethics.org.uk) is an
association of more than three hundred editors most of whom are European
based. COPE members meet regularly to discuss cases which are submitted
to it. After thorough discussion of all the individual cases, it
publishes its findings and offer advice to those who submit these cases.
It also provides Code of practice for editors.
Some of the problems discussed at the COPE meeting include
duplicate/redundant publication, authorship issues, non approval from
the Ethical Committees, Institution Review Boards, no or inadequate
informed consent, falsification or fabrication, plagiarism, unethical
research or clinical malpractice, undeclared conflict of interest,
misconduct by the reviewers, editorial misconduct etc.
While dealing with misconduct, the examination of misconduct must focus
not only on the particular act or omission but also on the intention of
the researcher, author, editor, reviewer or publisher involved. It is
implicit that “best practice” requires complete honesty with full
disclosure. Code of practice may raise awareness but it can never be
exhaustive.
While investigating misconduct the editors should not simply reject
papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are ethically obliged to
pursue the case. However, knowing how to investigate and respond to
possible cases of misconduct is not easy. Committee on Publication
Ethics is always willing to advice but for legal reasons, it can only
advise on anonymised cases. In the end it is up to the editors to decide
what action they wish to take.
Redundant Publication: It consists of Duplication and Salami slicing.
But it does not include previous presentation at a meeting, abstract
prepublication, agreed prior electronic publication; translation of
original is referenced besides referenced republished work.
Salami Slicing: It consists of attempting to maximize publications by
re-using the same data. However, it is acceptable if different message
is intended to be given to different readership. But it is unacceptable
if degree of overlap is much greater.
In order to prevent all this, it is important that the instruction to
authors clearly state the journal’s policy regarding redundant
publication. The editors should ask the authors to sign a statement or
tick a relevant box which will be helpful in subsequent investigations.
It is also important to consider the degree of redundancy i.e. no
overlap, minor overlap like reanalysis of the same study. Major overlaps
include use of same data and reporting same or similar findings. In such
cases the Editors must ask for author’s explanation. One cam come across
honest mistakes, it could be the result of unclear instructions
published by the journal or the author is very junior researcher who is
not fully familiar with publication ethics. Such cases could also
include a manuscript submitted to a journal is a verbatim copy of one
published before by a different group but the numbers have been changed.
In some cases in the manuscript submitted to the journal contains large
sections of introduction, methodology and discussions are copies from
other articles which are not referenced. The editors can take various
decisions like rejecting the manuscript, write to the authors with
appropriate remarks, black list such authors, and inform the superiors
of the author or the respective institution, department. In case such a
manuscript has already been published, a retraction should be published
under intimation to the authors.
Plagiarism: It means copying the idea or passages of text from someone
else’s work and using them as if they were author’s own. Unreferenced
use of the ideas of others submitted as a “new” paper by a different
author is also plagiarism. To prevent these instructions to authors by
the journals should clearly include a definition of plagiarism and state
the journal’s policy on plagiarism.
Investigation of such cases could reveal whether it is a clear case of
plagiarism, there is minor copying, there is redundancy or there may be
no evidence. In such cases too, the editors should ask for explanation
from the authors and the procedure adopted to handle such cases is the
same as that of salami slicing mentioned earlier. If the author’s
explanation is convincing or if he or she apologizes for the mistake, a
kind hearted Editor-in-Chief may accept that and issue proper warning.
But in some cases such authors are in the habit of doing all this and
then subsequently apologizing if caught. These authors are plagiarists
because once a cheater is most often always a cheater.
It is not easy to detect fabrication unless the editors have some proof
from the institution where the study was conducted. Such practices are
usually accompanied by other forms of misconduct. In such cases the
Editors should ask for evidence carefully. Have the raw data evaluated
by an expert if possible and then order final investigations by the
authorities. Other cases of publication misconduct include change in
authorship, unrevealed conflict of interest, and ethical problems in the
conduct of the study besides complaints against the Editors. Some of the
useful sources from which advice can be obtained are as under:
1. Committee on Publication Ethics COPE (www.publicationethicsorg.uk)
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (www.icmje.org)
3. ORI. (www.ori.dhhs.gov)
4. World Association of Medical Editors. (www.wame.org)
5. Council of Science Editors. (www.CouncilScienceEditors.org)
* Scientific Writing and
Publishing Advisor to
Vice Chancellor for Research,
Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Member, EMAME Training Committee.
Member, WAME Editorial Policy Committee.
Associate Editor, Archives of Iranian Medicine
E mail: aetemadi@tums.ac.ir
|
PDF