P bli hi Ethi
Publishing
Ethics
Guidance for Journal Editors
Tamara Welschot,
Welschot Manager Publishing Operations
Beijing, June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
I am writing to inform you that it has recently come to my notice that an article published in 2010 by Chowdhury and Adhikari in the journal Engineering
Computations plagiarizes a paper by Li, Wang, Rosenthal and Rabitz that was published in the Journal of Mathematical Chemistry in 2001. In my view, the nature
of this incident is such that it may potentially be a copyright violation issue as well.
It has been brought to our attention that
there is an image duplication in your article
“Ginsenoside Rg1 enhances angiogenesis
and ameliorates ventricular remodelling…
remodelling ”
by Yin et al J Mol Med (Berl). 2011; 89:363‐
375
I came across an instance of
what I suspect to be
plagiarism whether
plagiarism,
intentional or not, in one of
Springer's published
articles.
a
c es
I would like to bring to your attention that
unauthorized use of my name is MISCONDUCT on
part of Coauthors, Editors and the Publishers.
Withholding information, falsifying data and not
acknowledging the open results and proof I was
providing is both a professional MISCONDUCT and
INCOMPETENCE of the Editors and the Publishers.
Problems and Results of this paper are reproduced
from our paper, which is a case of PLAGIARISM. We
hope that you will take note of this case and inform
us about your action.
It has come to our attention that there is a concern over
replication/duplication of data and a potential of misleading data regarding
three of your recent publications in J. Ethnopharmacol. (JE) 133:1109
133:1109‐1116
1116
(2011), J. Neurosci. Res. (JNR) 89:437‐447 (2011), and Neurochem. Res. (NR)
36:801‐811 (see attachments).
The corresponding author of „Vitamin
C supplementation reconstitutes
polyfunctional T cells in
streptozotocin‐induced diabetic rats;
Ms. No. EJN
EJN‐D‐10‐00102R2“
D 10 00102R2 has
deleted my name from author list
just at the proof revision stage.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Purpose of this presentation
• Can we prevent fraud and misconduct.
misconduct If so,
so how?
• How to deal with fraud and misconduct upon receipt of an
allegation?
• What resources do we have available?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics in the form of fraud and misconduct has grown in interest
and attention and is happening more.
Why?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
• Publish or perish = publish‐at‐all costs mentality
‐ Increasing competition for shrinking government budgets for research
‐ Large rewards for publishing in the best journals
• Less obstruction to get to information
• Technological developments enabling less or unsupervised work
• High profile misconduct cases
‐ Scientists are supposed to have a high morality
• Blog Retraction Watch
• Anonymous whistleblowers
Many journals
• Easy to do
Disconnection between journals
Outside discipline
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Behavior, motives and background
Stressed scientist
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Diederik Stapel
Stapel committed fraud in at least 55 papers …
From an interview published in the New York Times:
“It
It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth.
truth.”
“They (Journal Editors) are actually telling you: ‘Leave out this stuff. Make it simpler.”
“There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition.
Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery,
about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion,
marketing. I am a salesman. I am on the road. People are on the road with their talk.
With the same talk. It’s like a circus.”
“I have fallen from my throne — I am on the floor.”
“People
“P
l think
hi k off scientists
i i as monks
k iin a monastery llooking
ki out ffor the
h truth.
h P
People
l
have lost faith in the church, but they haven’t lost faith in science. My behavior shows
that science is not holy.”
The mind of a con man
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Where does it all start?
It starts with
h responsible
bl research
h conduct.
d
g
with the Global Network off Science
The InterAcademyy Council ((IAC)) together
Academies (IAP) states the following:
“Researchers have the primary responsibility for upholding standards of
responsible
bl conduct in research.
h They
h should
h l employ
l the
h expected standards
of their fields, observe applicable laws and regulations, be willing to share
data with others, and agree on the standards to be observed in
multidisciplinary collaborations.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Second World
l Conference
f
on Research
h Integrity
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity
One outcome of the Third World Conference on Research Integrity will be a Montreal
Statement that will offer gguidance on integrity
g y in cross‐national, cross‐disciplinary
p
y and cross‐
sector research.
A draft of the statement can be viewed here:
http://wcri2013.org/Montreal_Statement_e.shtml
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
But … irregularities that occur at research stage could end up in publications!
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
How do we deal with these irregularities?
Springer has a policy available which was drafted in 2010
2010.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Policies should move with the times
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The policy has been updated
Collaborative effort with input from Publishing, Legal Department,
Corporate Communications, and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• Six instances of misconduct (previously four)
• Directly following the COPE Guidelines with flowcharts corresponding with each
instance of misconduct
• Revised statement on banning
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Where is the new policy located?
• www.springer.com/Editors
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
• The Author pages link to the Guide: www.springer.com/authors
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The Springer Guide on Publishing Ethics is specifically developed for
Journal Editors.
Comment Springer Editor‐in‐Chief: “My concern is the integrity of the Journal”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Common dilemmas for Journal Editors
• Time consuming!
• No reply from authors
• No reply from head of institutions
q
investigation
g
byy institution
• Inadequate
• What to do, if alleged misconduct is unproven?
• What to do with authors in future?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What does the Springer Guide on Publishing Ethics cover?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
• Information on Committee on Publication Ethics
• Developing a publishing ethics policy for your journal
• Definitions of the six instances of misconduct and what to do
• Should an author be banned?
• How to correct the literature
• Plagiarism detection software (CrossCheck/iThenticate)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Information on our membership with Committee on Publication
Ethics and what that means for journal editors
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Committee on Publication Ethics
Springer is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and subscribes
to its principles on how to deal with acts of misconduct.
Springer strongly recommends journal editors to join COPE and thereby adhere to the
principles
i i l off COPE,
COPE committing
itti to
t investigate
i
ti t allegations
ll ti
off misconduct
i
d t and
d to
t ensure
the integrity of research.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
“The COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors is
d i
designed
d to provide
id a set off minimum
i i
standards
d d to
which all COPE members are expected to adhere.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Why is joining important?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The reputation of the journal is enhanced by following the guidelines
guidelines.
When JJournall Editors
Wh
Edit are criticized
iti i d they
th can say th
thatt th
they ffollow
ll
th
the COPE
guidelines.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
“Endorsement
Endorsement of international policies from policy-producing
policy producing bodies
is usually positively associated with implementation of policies and
procedures.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
COPE Resources
• Code of Conduct
• Flowcharts
• Guidelines
• Newsletter
• COPE Discussion documents
• eLearning modules
• Searchable database of cases
• Seminars
• Sample letters (note: Council of Science Editors also has sample letters)
http://publicationethics.org/resources
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Formulating individual journal policies
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The guidelines from COPE address the basics concerning misconduct and how to
handle.
• Individual p
policies p
provide advice to p
potential authors ((managing
g g author
expectations)
‐ on scientific content
‐ on authorship
• Journal policies can prevent some types of misconduct
‐ “difficult
“difficult, time
time‐consuming
consuming and legally
legally‐challenging
challenging to deal with misconduct in
published articles”
• Without policies ‐> ad hoc reactions to allegations
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
“Audit your journal”
“The
The COPE Audit is designed to help (journal) editors identify areas of their journal
journal'ss
policy, processes or practice that require attention and may need to be revised so
that they adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines on
publication ethics.
ethics ”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Managing author expectations via journal policies
• Clear guidelines on the submission of the work
• What type of content is or is not acceptable for publication?
‐ Are extended versions of conference proceedings acceptable?
‐ Are translations of previously published articles acceptable?
• Guidelines on what constitutes authorship and how proposed changes to
authorship are handled
• Description of peer review process
‐ A clear peer review process is essential and supports the integrity of the journal
‐ Cope has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• Inclusion of necessary ethical statements if required
‐ Conflict of interest
‐ Human and animal rights
‐ Informed consent
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Definitions of misconduct and what to do when you are
encountering possible misconduct
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Five steps to follow when encountering possible misconduct:
1. Remain a neutral player and treat all potential misconduct cases confidentially
2. Keep records of written communication including the allegation and the evidence
of the complainant
3 Raise
3.
i the
h iissue with
i h the
h accused
d ((co‐)author
) h in
i a timely
i l manner
4. Assess what exactly has happened (fact finding) and be transparant and final
about decisions
5. In case of potential media attention (e.g. as soon as the media is aware) or legal
questions please contact your Springer Publishing Editor who will liaise with
Corporate Communications and /or Springer’s
Springer s Legal Department
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Data fabrication / data falsification
• Data fabrication: making up of research findings
• Data falsification: manipulating research data by removing “inconvenient” results,
changing, adding or omitting data points. This includes manipulating images.
Useful links are provided in the Guide concerning image manipulation:
• CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 3.4 Digital
Images and Misconduct
• What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation
• ORI “Forensic Images Samples” for the quick examination of scientific images
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Why is data fabrication/data falsification so difficult to uncover?
Research studies are difficult to replicate, especially if patients are involved and it
concerns a study that took multiple years.
S
Sometimes
i
the
h results
l are not wrong, b
but the
h data
d
are ffalse.
l
Within author groups others have conducted their experiments appropriately
appropriately.
“Do you really believe that someone with [Diederik Stapel’s] status
faked data?”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What are the consequences of data fabrication/data falsification?
“Massaged results can send other researchers down the wrong track, wasting time
and money trying to replicate them.
them Worse,
Worse in medicine,
medicine it can delay the
development of life‐saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are
ineffective of dangerous.” (Alok Jha, science correspondent for The Guardian)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Duplicate submission/publication and redundant publication
• Duplicate submission/publication: submitting the same study to two (or more)
journals or publishing more or less the same study in two journals. These
submissions/publications can be nearly simultaneous or years later.
• Redundant publication : one study is split into several parts and submitted to two
or more journals (‘salami‐publishing’). Or findings have been previously published
elsewhere without proper cross‐referencing, permission or justification.
EEssentially
ti ll it implies
i li significant
i ifi t d
data
t republication
bli ti without
ith t littl
little original
i i l material
t i l
added to previous work by the same authors.
“Self‐plagiarism” is considered a form of redundant publication.
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
„Self‐plagiarism“
Recycling or borrowing content from previous work without citation. This practice is
widespread and might be unintentional.
Transparency provided
id d by
b the
h author
h on the
h use off previously
i l published
bli h d workk usually
ll
provided the necessary information to make an assessment whether it is deliberate or
unintentional.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What are the consequences of duplicate and redundant publication?
If authors are publishing the results twice (or more), readers might give the results a
higher value.
value E.g
E g they will overemphasize the importance of a single study
study.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Duplication of text and/or figures (plagiarism)
Plagiarism occurs when someone present the work of
others (data, text, or theories) as if it were his/her own
without proper acknowledgement.
The severity of plagiarism depends on various factors:
‐ Extent (quantity) of copied material
‐ Originality (quality) of copied material
‐ Position (introduction/results/discussion sections) / context / type of material
‐ Referencing/attribution of material used
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Alarm bells
When there is textual overlap in:
Abstract
Keywords
Results / Discussion /Conclusions
Useful links are provided in the Guide concerning plagiarism:
• M. Roig “Avoiding plagiarism, self‐plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices:
A guide to ethical writing”
• Text Recycling Guidelines from COPE
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
M. Roig provides practical guidelines:
• The contributions of others and the source of their ideas should always be
acknowledged.
• Any verbatim text taken from another author must be enclosed in quotation marks.
• Every source used
d iin writing
i i must be
b acknowledged;
k
l d d whether
h h it
i iis paraphrased,
h
d
summarized, or enclosed in quotations.
Where do plagiarists go wrong?
“In order to make substantial modifications to the original text that result in a
proper paraphrase, the author must have a thorough understanding of the ideas
and terminology being used.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Plagiarism – many shades of grey
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Knowledge about plagiarism varies considerably ….
“If you just change the font size it will be ok.”
Sources have been properly cited, but not quoted.
Presentation is problematic, but not the data.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Various possibilities:
• Verbatim copying of another’s
another s work and submitting it as one
one’ss own.
• Verbatim copying of significant portions of text from a single source.
• Mixing verbatim copied material from multiple sources (“patchwork copying”). This
could range from 1 or 2 paragraphs to significant portions consisting of several
paragraphs.
• Changing key words and phrases but retaining the essential content of the source
as a framework.
• Rephrasing of the text’s original wording and/or structure and submitting it as one’s
own.
• Mixing slightly rephrased material from multiple sources and presenting what has
been published already as new.
• The work is cited, but the cited portions are not clearly identified. This can be
combined with copied parts of text without citation.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Examples provided by CrossCheck/iThenticate
Example
p of text similarityy usingg CrossCheck ((text‐onlyy view: 18% text overlap
p with
regards to one individual source).
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Example of text similarity using CrossCheck (Document View: 13% text overlap with
regards to individual source # 1. Other sources are below 10%.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
This is an example of what seemed dislocated sentences, but a side by side
comparison with the original article showed that iThenticate did miss out on other
words/sentences.
Please be aware that the software also misses out on articles of which authors have
used paraphrasing AND switched around sections in the article.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
How about copying Materials and Methods?
Verbatim repetition of the description of the methodology by the same or different
authors (cookbook instructions, standard lab methods).
Some say that it is preferable to cite the previous article.
Others think there is nothing wrong with (verbatim) repeating the method (unless it
is an innovative method).
Prevailing is the first where an author should state: “ …based on methods previously
described …” and include references.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
And what about PhD theses?
Cases that concern PhD theses are difficult.
They are considered published, but they are often not seen this way.
Plagiarism does not have to be on published material on. It concerns intellectual
property.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Note! For review papers the situation is different.
Review papers are expected to give a summary of existing literature. Authors should
use their own words with exception of properly quoted and/or cited texts and the
work should include a new interpretation.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Plagiarism (ethics) versus copyright infringement (law)
Plagiarism concerns “ethical standards” or “good publishing standards”.
Copyright infringement concerns “law”.
There is no clear distinction between the two and actions could be different as well.
Î Plagiarism: author of original work may seek retraction or erratum
Î Copyright infringement: there is no infringement unless exact words, figures or
images are replicated
Legal right of copyright owner to claim for financial damages!
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Authorship issues
• Authorship without the author’s knowledge
• Unacknowledged authorship
But also …
Are changes in the order of authors allowed at proof stage?
And …
What if there are new author names appearing at revision stage?
And
Removal of names of authors at proof stage?
Practice shows that most authors request a retraction.
It often concerns a strive over ownership of data.
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Disputes usually deal with:
1) Which members of a research team merit authorship?
2) Who is designated as senior author of the resulting journal article?
3) How is the rest of the authorship order determined?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What constitutes authorship?
There is no universal definition of what constitutes authorship.
It is generally believed that authors should be identified by the research group as
h i contributed
having
ib d sufficiently
ffi i l to the
h scientific
i ifi work,
k who
h are accountable
bl for
f their
h i
part of the work, and who critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Criteria: Authoring, Drafting, Reviewing, Approving
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Authorship guidelines for students
Are the authorship guidelines for students different than those for other
professionals?
According to Fine and Kurdek (1993) who have written on these issue there is no
difference According to these authors:
difference.
“To be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a
cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual in
nature,
t
th
thatt iis iintegral
t
l tto completion
l ti off th
the paper, and
d that
th t requires
i an overarching
hi
perspective of the project. Examples of professional contributions include developing
the research design, writing portions of the manuscript, integrating diverse
theoretical perspectives,
perspectives developing new conceptual models,
models designing assessments
assessments,
contributing to data analysis decision and interpreting results …” (p. 1145).
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
How can authorship issues be avoided?
COPE advices to have communication with all authors at some point.
Editorial Manager has an existing feature “Enhanced co‐author verification”. This
feature is available with two options:
1) All authors get an automatic e‐mail with includes a link in which they need to tick
to indicate that they are affiliated with the submission.
submission
2) All authors get an automatic e‐mail which simply states that this submission has
been received. There is no link but it includes text that they should react if they
are nott an author.
th
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Unique researcher ID ‐> ORCID
“ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other
researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript
and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your
professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.”
Perhaps in the future the ORCID ID could be helpful to prevent authorship issues.
For more information please visit: http://orcid.org/
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
An author dispute is no ground for retraction
Unless ….
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
There
h
iis something
hi wrong with
i h the
h d
data off the
h study
d
Or
There are legal issues (no consent/permission to publish data)
Please note that in certain cases it is important that all authors agree to the
retraction.
‐ If part of the authors are disagreeing to retract the article
article, than it is
wise not to retract in order to avoid a potential legal claim.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What should an Editor‐in‐Chief do?
Step 1: The journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he
cannot adjudicate, e.g. it is not the role of editors to make
authorship/contributorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorship,
but that s/he is willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the
authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a
change is justified.
If a correction is refused …
Step 2: Request for official documentation and, if available, email conversations to
consider how to proceed. Request a formal investigation by the institution to find out
what the real issues are and/or whether there are grounds for retraction
retraction.
p 3: If ground
g
for retraction, retract.
Step
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Other option
Publication of point‐and counterpoint letter(s) to the journal where the aggrieved
author has an opportunity to have his comments aired.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Experiences concerning allegations of plagiarism and author
disputes
In some cases it makes to find out more about the personal background of the
complainers. Experiences have shown that there might be personal frictions.
Example:
Li Si / Peter Parker (nick names used by the same complainer)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Undeclared conflict of interest
• Declaration of interests relevant to the work (financial and personal relationships)
to avoid the potential for bias
There could be confusion …
Declaring an affiliation with a
pharmaceutical or device company
may seem obvious, but …
Dual employment??
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Ethical problems
These relate to:
• Patient consent
• Animal experimentation
• Lack of ethical approval (IRB)
Springer had designed guidelines for authors
which can be found on
http://www.springer.com/PubMedEthicalPolicy
Follow the COPE flowcharts …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Patient consent
Patient images: These images are subject to patient/physician confidentiality AND
d t privacy
data
i
AND th
the patient’s
ti t’ right
i ht tto th
their
i own image
i
Î Ensure these images are rendered anonymous
Black bars over eyes are not enough to render a person unrecognizable
Î Check the metadata, immediately delete any patient information
Î Make authors aware that their p
patients must be informed about p
publications
Î Use a consent form
Only when patients are able to recognize themselves, or anyone within their social
circle is able to recognize their features, does it constitute a violation.
Also note that up to 10 years after the death of the depicted person, it is necessary
to secure the consent of their heirs prior to publication.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
When is a person still recognizable?
© Yuri Arcurs / Fotolia.com
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
When dealing with ethical issues, journal policies need to be reasonable
concerning ethical requirements because local approval systems and legal
requirements vary.
Example:
A study involving an application of a toxic substance could mean that in a certain
country or region the dose is not legal, but elsewhere it could be legal.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Should an author be banned and when?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Banningg is not a p
policyy endorsed byy COPE.
The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature. It is not meant to punish
authors.
There are potential legal issues …
… it could be considered “restraint of trade”.
Essentially, the responsibility to investigate and punish misconduct rests with the
Essentially
scientists’ employers or society.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
It is however Springer’s view that in exceptional cases (repeat offenders or authors
using abusive language) the Editor‐in‐chief/Editorial Board has the right to refuse to
review/accept papers from these authors.
And we are not alone:
“Data showing a prevalence of duplicate publications of 8.5% in otolaryngology
journals many published within 12 months of the first article
journals,
article, prompted American
editors of otolaryngology, head and neck surgery journals to coordinate responses to
violations of publication ethics by
.” (Xavier
Bosch et al)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
How to correct the literature?
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Background information on retractions
The number of retractions increased from 30 in the early 2000s to approximately 400
in 2012. The number of publications increased with only 44% in that same period.
Reasons for
f the
h increase
i
according
di to G
Grant R. SSteen are various:
i
• This could be due to a real increase in the incidence of fraud
• Greater effect on the part of journals to police the literature
• Journals are reaching further back in time to retract published papers
Scientific misconduct account for more than two‐thirds of retractions in
the biomedical and life sciences.
sciences (Fang et al)
BUT …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The peak rate is only 0.04% of the annual biomedical literature.
(ORI Newsletter, December 2012)
Retractions seem to be rare in certain fields, for example
economics.
economics
A few
e repeat
epeat offenders
o e de s (ca
(can)) co
contribute
t bute d
disproportionately
sp opo t o ate y to
the number of retractions.
¾Yoshitaka
¾Y
hit k Fujii
F jii – 172 retractions
t ti
¾Joachim Boldt – 90+ retractions
¾Annil Potti – 11 papers retracted which will likely grow to 40
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Springer statistics
Important note: This concerns closed/finalized tickets.
Numbe
er of retractions
Number of retractions for 2009‐2012
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
95
93
77
2009
75
2010
2011
Year
2012
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
19 (1/4th) of the 75 retractions were retracted due to data
fabrication. 18 of these retractions were for Fuiji.
The other retractions are mostly because of plagiarism
plagiarism, intellectual
property issues, duplicate publication.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The difficulty with retractions
• The reasons for retractions are not always clearly stated. It is therefore not clear
whether the retraction is due to an honest error or misconduct.
• Authors who are retracting papers are often not providing truthful explanations of
the reasons behind these actions.
actions
COPE recommends the following:
g
• state who is retracting the article
• state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)
• avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libellous
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Why is having clear retraction notes important?
• Avoids stigmatization of authors who notify journals of possible problems with their
study.
• It must be made clear that the problematic material should not be used as a basis
for building additional research.
research
‐ Especially important if you are dealing with medical treatments
Time spent on research based on fraudulent
work is wasted effort!
“The biggest issue with outright fraud is not that the bad scientists gets
caught
h but
b the
h corrupting effect
ff the
h workk can have
h
on the
h scientific
f
literature.” (Uri Simonsohn)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
“ …retractions represent the strength of science, not its weakness ...”
(ORI December 2012 Newsletter)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Unclear retraction notes
They often use the following phrases:
“This article was retracted due to copyright problems.”
“This article is retracted due to unsolved legal reasons.”
“This article has been officially retracted from the Journal.”
“This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors. The authors
acknowledge there are serious errors in the figures.”
“After
After due examination of the allegations, and response of the responsible author, the
investigation committee has concluded that there had been issue with respect to
misconduct.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Clear examples of retraction notes
• Plagiarism:
“The (Journals office) received a complaint from an alert reader to the effect that the paper ‘ (article title)’ by
(names of authors), published in Journal A. Vol. X, No. X, Month Year, pp.x‐x is a plagiarized version of an
earlier article published in Journal B ‘article
article title’
title by (names of authors) (Vol.
(Vol X,
X Month Year,
Year pp.x
pp x‐x)
x). The
‘results and discussion’ part of the Journal A paper contained exactly the same sentences, the same tables of
results with the same yields as those of the article published in Year X. The bibliographic references X to X
were also the same.
Accordingly, and as per the {X} policy on plagiarism, it has been decided to withdraw the article published by
(name of authors) in Journal A and remove the article from the websites of the Academy and Springer.
The Editorial Board takes a serious view of acts of plagiarism in the journal and is committed to take all
necessary steps to prevent such acts.”
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
• Plagiarism:
"After careful and considered review of the content and authorship of this paper by a duly constituted expert
committee,
itt this
thi paper has
h been
b
found
f
d to
t be
b in
i violation
i l ti off {publisher
{ bli h name}'s
}' Publication
P bli ti Principles.
P i i l This
Thi
paper has copied portions of text from the sources cited below. The lead author, {name}, was found to be
solely responsible for the violation. The original text was copied without attribution (including appropriate
references to the original author(s) and/or paper title) and without permission.
permission
{article title, authors, etc}
{article title, authors, etc}”
etc}
• Dispute over intellectual property:
" This article has been retracted at the request of the Author. There is a conflict of intellectual property
ownership of the published material. The research presented in this article originated from a government
funding body {name funding body}. The project has lapsed in {date} and according to Intellectual Property (IP)
arrangements, the authors may not publish work that originated from this project. The authors apologize
sincerely for this oversight.“
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
When do we retract articles?
Springer follows the COPE Guidelines:
• If there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of
misconduct
i
d
or h
honest error
• If the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross‐
referencing,
g p
permission or jjustification (redundant p
publication)
• If it constitutes plagiarism
• If a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or
recommendations is not disclosed
• it reports unethical research (patient consent, animal experimentation, lack of
ethical/IRB
/
((Institutional Review Board)) approval)
pp
)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
When are retractions not appropriate?
Retractions are not appropriate in the following cases:
• A change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the
findings
• If only
l a smallll partt off an article
ti l reports
t fl
flawed
dd
data,
t especially
i ll if this
thi is
i the
th result
lt off
genuine error
• If only a small section of an article is plagiarized while the rest of the article is sound
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
How does Springer handle retractions?
Online First
I.
“Retracted article” is added in front of article title. Author data is kept.
II. Body of text is replaced by retraction note
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Original article published in an issue
I.
Changes to original article
‐
Retracted article is added in front of article title
‐
Original article is watermarked (PDF) (XML is not watermarked)
‐
Link included back to retraction note
Example xml:
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
II. Additional retraction note published
‐ “Retraction
“R t ti Note
N t to”
t ” + title
titl off article
ti l and
d names off authors
th
‐ Text stating reasons for retraction including who has made the decision to
retract (Author(s), Editor‐in‐Chief, Society, or jointly)
‐ Retraction note links to watermarked article
Example
p on abstract level:
Example on article level:
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Plagiarism detection software (CrossCheck/iThenticate)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What is the difference between CrossCheck and iThenticate?
• CrossCheck is a database of scholarly publications
• iThenticate is a web‐based tool to check an authored work against the database.
The web‐based tool can be used in the editorial process to identify matching text.
But …
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
It cannot identify plagiarism.
plagiarism
It takes a human eye to decide if text (figures are excluded) has been
plagiarized or not.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
One should be aware of the following:
• Only publications of publishers and societies participating are included.
For a complete list of current members please see:
http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck_members.html
• Challenges concerning turnaround time of indexing activities and how quickly
content is changing
g g ((specifically
p
y for internet sites like Wikipedia)
p
)
‐ Speed of indexing for Wikipedia is 86%
‐ Speed of adding content by other publishers depends on when their content is
being crawled (once a week, twice a week, etc)
‐ Not all open accessible content on the internet is being crawled
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
CrossCheck summary
• Participating publishers: 480
• Titles indexed: 92,500
• Content items indexed: 37.7M
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Some tips
• The overall similarity percentage gives an indication, but it could also work
counterintuitive.
‐ A low similarity score does not mean there is no plagiarism.
‐ A hi
high
h similarity
i il i score does
d
not automatically
i ll mean the
h content is
i plagiarized.
l i i d
‐ Permissions?
‐ Building upon previous work of same author?
‐ Review articles?
‐ Materials and methods?
• Individual sources usually provide better indications. Generally, individual sources
should not have figures higher than 10%.
‐ But be careful if the majority of the paper is made up of copied strings of
material of which the individual sources do not show percentages of more than
1‐5% overlap (“patchwork copying”)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Matches to individual sources
The case below shows two articles with matches to individual sources over 10%.
These need to be checked more carefully.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
The example below shows individual sources with matches of 4% or less. A thorough
view showed that the article consisted of patchwork copying. Internet resources can
give an indication of this particular type of copying.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Th software
The
ft
is
i unable
bl to
t detect
d t t allll problems
bl
that
th t could
ld occur.
Thorough peer review is still one of the most important factors to ensure the
integrity of the scholarly record.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
CrossCheck/iThenticate – Resources
1. Springer Guide on “How to interpret the results using CrossCheck / iThenticate?”
2. iThenticate Quick Start Guide (how to navigate iThenticate)
3. iThenticate helpdesk : ccsupport@ithenticate.com
4. iThenticate resources: blog, videos, papers on plagiarism and other reports
http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/plagiarism‐papers/
5. Live training webcasts, customer training videos, FAQ concerning understanding
reports,
p
, various documents and manuals
http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/customer‐training/
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
We should take publishing ethics serious!
⇒Indecent purposes
⇒Liability purposes
⇒ Copyright infringement purposes
⇒If we do not act,, someone else will expose
p
it for you!
y
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Staged process for dealing with potential misconduct
1. Springer Guide on Publishing Ethics
2. If the Guide is not sufficient or the matter very complex you can discuss the case
with your publishing editor
3 If the
3.
h case iis too complex
l or if the
h case remains
i unsolved,
l d the
h case can b
be
submitted to the COPE Forum (4 meetings)
Suggestion for journal editors:
You can establish an independent
p
panel to review the case and submit advice.
p
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
What is the risk of being held liable?
Retractions
Authors sometimes threaten journal editors or publishing companies with legal
action (litigation) in an effort to suppress publication of an article or request
retraction once it is published or when authors disagree with a retraction
retraction.
Concern over litigation can make editors reluctant to
retract
t t articles.
ti l
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Here is some reassurance …
“The exact elements of what constitutes defamation vary per jurisdiction.”
“Defamation laws vary greatly from country to country.”
“Judges have been critical of defamation lawsuits …”
Words from a judge:
“Scientific
Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of
science rather than by the methods of litigation.”
(Source: PCL‐R Psychopathy: Threats to Sue, Peer Review, and Potential Implications for Science and Law. A Commentary,International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9:3‐10, 2010)
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
These threats are rare!
How can potentiall litigation
l
or threats
h
be
b prevented?
d?
1) Journals’ instructions for authors should explain the retraction procedure and describe the
circumstances under which articles might be retracted.
2) If the Journal Editor has carried out a suitable investigation and proper procedures than
the authors usually have no grounds for taking legal action against a journal over the act of
retraction.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
“However, legal advice may be helpful to determine appropriate wording for a notice
of retraction or expression of concern to ensure that these are not defamatory or
libellous. Nevertheless, retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for
retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.” (Source: COPE Retraction Guidelines)
In case of any legal concerns or questions, please contact your publishing editor.
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
It is impossible
p
to police
p
We need to trust our authors
Publishing Ethics| For Journal Editors |June 2013
Science should help make the world a better place.
Thank you!