Research and Publication Ethics

Module 1: Philosophy and Ethics

Basic details

Module 1 Philosophy and Ethics

Teaching hours 04

Module 1: Overview of content

Introduction to Philosophy Ethics

1. Definition of Philosophy 6. Definition of Ethics
2. Nature of Philosophy 7. Moral Philosophy
3. Scope of Philosophy 8. Nature of Moral judgements and reactions
4. Concept of Philosophy
5. Branches of Philosophy

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

What is Philosophy? https://thebadbread.com/2020/01/10/what-i

s-philosophy/

RPE Notes https://vidyaprasar.dei.ac.in/topic/b-ethics-def

inition-moral-philosophy-nature-of-moral-jud
gments-and-reactions/

Moral Philosophy https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_contin

ue=35&v=9TqJrvtt9ws&feature=emb_logo

Moral Philosophy https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philo

sophy

Moral Judgments and reactions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hpW79

AvGBI
Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 Definition of Philosophy

The origin of “Philosophy” is from two Greek words – ‘Philos’ meaning love and ‘Sofia’
meaning knowledge or wisdom. Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of
wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to
understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and
their relationships to the world and to each other. As an academic discipline, philosophy
is much the same. Those who study philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking,
answering, and arguing for their answers to life’s most basic questions. Philosophy is a
study that “seeks to uncover the nature, root, and meaning of life, being, reality
(metaphysics), ethics, and knowledge (epistemology).”

● Traditionally, the word “philosophy”, means the description of study like logic,
sociology, psychology, etc

● Surfacely, the word “philosophy” means view, vision and outlook of a particular
person on a particular thing

● Literally, philosophy is “the study of nature and meaning of the universe and of
human life”

● In the context of research, philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and

assumptions about the development of knowledge

A definition of philosophy is notoriously difficult. Let's look at some authentic

definitions of philosophy by some distinguished philosophers:

● “Philosophy is the science and criticism of cognition” - (Kant)

● “Philosophy is the science of knowledge” - (Fichte)

● “Philosophy aims at the knowledge of the eternal, of the essential nature of

things” - (Plato)

2
 ● “Philosophy is the science which investigates the nature of being as it is in virtue
of its own nature - (Aristotle)

● “Philosophy is the science of sciences” - (Comte)

● “Philosophy is the sum total of all scientific knowledge” - (Dr. Paulsen)

● Philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects such as ethics, thought,

existence, time, meaning and value. That 'way of thinking' involves 4 Rs:
responsiveness, reflection, reason and re-evaluation. The aim is to deepen
understanding. The hope is that by doing philosophy we learn to think better, to
act more wisely, and thereby help to improve the quality of all our lives.

Here we see that the first two definitions imply philosophy as the epistemological study
or the theory of knowledge. The next two definitions indicate philosophy as
metaphysical study or as the theory of reality. And the last three show the scientific
aspect of philosophy. Hence, it can be concluded that philosophy is the sum total of all
of these ideas.

Philosophy harmonizes the highest conclusions of the different sciences, coordinates

them one another, and gives a rational conception (idea) of the whole world.

Summary:
● Philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand
fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their
relationships to the world and to each other
● Involves asking, answering, and arguing
● Philosophy is a study that “seeks to uncover the nature, root, and meaning of
life, being, reality (metaphysics), ethics, and knowledge (epistemology).”
● In the context of research, philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and
assumptions about the development of knowledge
● Philosophy harmonizes the highest conclusions of the different sciences,
coordinates them one another, and gives a rational conception (idea) of the

3
 whole world.

1.2 Nature of Philosophy [EPDSLFWEAM] [Hospital:Food:Team]

1. Philosophy literally means ‘love of wisdom’: It is an attempt to arrive at a rational

conception of the reality as a whole. It enquires into the nature of the universe in
which we live, its constituents and their relation to one another. It is the art of
thinking all things logically, systematically, and persistently.

2. Philosophy is a persistent attempt to seek clear notions: Clarification of concepts

is the task of philosophy.

3. Philosophy is the critical analysis of the popular and scientific concepts, and the
discovery of their relations to one another. It is a rational attempt to integrate our
knowledge and interpret and unify our experiences.

4. It systematizes our scientific knowledge, and moral, aesthetic and religious

experiences: It analyses the popular and scientific concepts, examines their
vali­dity in the light of reason, and interrelates them to one another. Its method is
logical and rational. Its chief instrument is logic. Its method is rational
speculation, logical analysis and synthesis.

5. Philosophy analyzes the foundations and presuppositions underlying other

disciplines: Philosophy investigates and studies the underpinnings of science, art,
and theology. Philosophers do not ask "Are Pablo Picasso's paintings 'good' art?"
(as art critics do) but "Is aesthetic judgment a matter of personal taste, or are
there objective standards that we can apply to evaluate a work of art?"
Philosophers do not ask "Is the theory of evolution true?" (as biologists and
physical anthropologists do) but "How do we distinguish truth from error?"

6. Philosophy attempts to develop a comprehensive conception or apprehension of

the world: Philosophy seeks to integrate the knowledge of the sciences with that
of other fields of study to achieve some kind of consistent and coherent

4
 worldview. Philosophers do not want to confine their attention to a fragment of
human experience or knowledge, but rather, want to reflect upon life as a totality.
In speaking of this particular function, Charlie Dunbar Broad, an English
twentieth century philosopher, says: "The objective is to take over the results of
the various sciences, to add to them the results of the religious and ethical
experiences of mankind, and then to reflect upon the whole. The hope is that, by
this means, we may be able to reach some general conclusions as to the nature of
the universe, and as to our position and prospects in it."

7. Philosophy studies and critically evaluates our most deeply held beliefs and
attitudes, in particular, those which are often held uncritically: Philosophers
have an attitude of critical and logical thoughtfulness. They force us to see the
significance and consequences of our beliefs, and sometimes their
inconsistencies. They analyze the evidence (or lack of it) for our most treasured
beliefs, and seek to remove from our perspectives every taint and trace of
ignorance, prejudice, superstition, blind acceptance of ideas, and any other form
of irrationality. It is a study that asks big questions like what is knowledge? What
can we know for certain? How do we know what we know? How can we acquire
knowledge? What is a justified belief, and what makes it justified? etc.

8. Philosophizing is the activity of analysis: Philosophical attitude is reflective and

curious, guided by experience and reasoning. Philosophical methods include
induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis and dialectical methods. Philosophical
activity starts from wonder and curiosity. These activities may be individual as
well as social, alone as well as in a group. The real nature of philosophy is
intellectual and purely logical.

9. Philosophy as we know is the study of wisdom and one who loves this wisdom is
called philosopher: Philosopher knows every problem from its root and interprets
it through rational basis. Philosophy, the mother of all science, is the foundation
and the touchstone of every other subject whether physics, mathematics,
technology or like humanities.

5
Keywords: Enquire, Integrate, Interpret, Unify, Critical Evaluation, Analysis, Investigate
evidence, Worldview, Clarity, Logic, Systematizes, Comprehensive

Summary:
● Rational conception of reality as a whole
● Enquiry: Logical, Systematic and Persistent
● Clarity in concepts
● Critical analysis/ evaluation: Discover, Integrate, Interpret, Unify
● Systematize: Scientific, Moral, Aesthetic, Religious
● Logic
● Investigate underpinnings
● Develop a comprehensive idea
● Worldview
● Analyze evidence: Remove irrationality
● Reflective and curious
● Mother of all Science

1.3 Scope of Philosophy [VAIME]

Scope refers to width and breadth, outlook, comprehensiveness, range of experience,

purview, etc. The scope of philosophy is very vast. Francis Bacan, a great English
philosopher regarded philosophy as ‘the great mother of sciences’. The scope of
philosophy can be understood by seeing the branches of philosophy.
● The scope of philosophy is vast and wide. It is an intellectual exercise to know
about the basic nature of phenomena which we encounter in our day to day life.

● It demands for a method, where we acquire knowledge about subject matter &
complete its purpose as well

● The basic method of philosophy is “Rational Enquiry”, which helps in realization

of reality related to various events & circumstances of our life

6
 ● It is concerned with all the ethical, political, psychological, economical, scientific
and academic problems of our life, academic areas & society

Summary:
● Vast and Wide
● Concerned with all
● Demands for a method: Acquire knowledge
● Rational enquiry

1.4 Concept of Philosophy

A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon
should be gathered, analyzed and used. The term epistemology (what is known to be
true) as opposed to doxology (what is believed to be true) encompasses the various
philosophies of research approach. The nature of philosophy is totally based on thinking
ability and thoughts of the human mind. In the context of research, philosophy refers to
a system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge.

Generally, research philosophy has many branches related to a wide range of disciplines.
Within the scope of business studies, these are among main research philosophies:

Pragmatism: Seeking solutions for a problem in the real world through generating
useful knowledge. More interested in practical outcomes than abstract distinctions.
Follows reflexive process of inquiry: Initiated by doubt, and a sense that something is
wrong which then re-creates a new belief when problem is resolved

Positivism: Authentic knowledge is only that which is based on actual sense of

experience. Blend of rationalism and empiricism. Researchers herein are likely to use a
highly structured methodology in order to facilitate replication. Importance is for
quantitative research.

Realism: Idea that scientifically based theories provide descriptions of the world that
are approximately true. Belief is very important.

7
Interpretivism: Necessary to differentiate social sciences from natural sciences.
Human beings and social worlds cannot be studied in the same way as physical
phenomena. Qualitative in nature. “Social Action Theory” is prevalent.

Empiricism: All hypotheses and theories should be tested by a process of observation

and experience; emphasizes on evidence based knowledge. Researchers herein can draw
a clear distinction between facts and propositions that have been verified by experience
and experiment.

Post-Positivism: Social research using logical reasoning; characterized by use of new

tools; Qualitative in nature. Inductive and deductive methods of reasoning are used.

Summary:
● A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a
phenomenon should be gathered, analyzed and used
● Pragmatism: Outcome to a solution by generating knowledge
● Positivism: Experience; Structured; Replication; Quantitative
● Realism: Scientific theories provide description of the world
● Interpretivism: Differentiate; Qualitative
● Empiricism: Observation and experiment; Evidence
● Post Positivism: Social research via logical reasoning

1.5 Branches of Philosophy

There are many branches of philosophy. Some of the major ones are as follows:

Epistemology: Epistemology is the science of knowledge. Epistemology is derived

from Greek terms ‘Episteme’ and ‘Logy’ which means ‘knowledge’ and ‘science or study’.
Philosophy is the search for knowledge. This search is critical. Hence, the first problem
which arises before a philosopher is about the nature of knowledge and its limitations.
Therefore, Epistemology is the most fundamental branch of philosophy. It
philosophically discusses the falsehood, validity of knowledge, limits of knowledge and
nature of knowledge, knower and known. Epistemology or the theory of knowledge is

8
concerned with how we know what we do, what justifies us in believing what we do, and
what standards of evidence we should use in seeking truths about the world and human
experience. The main epistemologies in western philosophy are: rationalism,
empiricism, criticism and intuitionism. It delves into the definition, scope, and
parameters of knowledge and knowledge formation. It seeks to explain how we acquire
knowledge, how knowledge relates to notions like justification, truth, and belief, and
how and where it falls in the spectrum of certainty and error.

Metaphysics: This is the study of Existence, reality, nature of being, the physical
world, the universe or essence. It is an ancient subject but one that continues to raise
curiosity. Metaphysics is regarded as the queen of all sciences. There are two approaches
related to metaphysics, one that is spiritual, mystical or in abstract form, another which
designates what lies beyond the physical, or what is separate from the sensible and the
perceptible material world. Metaphysics is the philosophical branch that studies reality,
existence, the nature of being, the physical world, and the universe.

Ethics: Ethics discusses the criteria of right and good. Ethics is derived from the Greek
word “Ethos” which means customs, character, usages or habits. Ethics is also called
Moral philosophy derived from the Latin word “Mores” which means customs, habits or
character. Ethics literally means the science of customs, ways of behavior, character or
the science of human behavior. Ethics is the area of philosophy which investigates the
principles governing human actions in terms of their goodness, badness, rightness, and
wrongness, duties and obligations. It is concerned with discovering the principles that
should govern human conduct and with the investigation of normative issues involving
value judgment. Moral theory has the same relation to ethical decision making that the
study of grammar has the ability to study language. A person can speak a language
without ever having studied its grammar, and a person can also make ethical decisions
without ever having studied moral theory. But just as our ability to function in a
language is often aided by a study of grammar, so does an inquiry into theoretical
concerns aid us in clarifying our ethical choices. Ethics is concerned with judgments of
value and studies what ought to be. Ethics is the science of highest good. Morality and
ethics are used synonymously although there is little difference between these two while

9
morality is the right or wrong (or otherwise) of an action, a way of life or a decision and
Ethics is the study of such standards as we use or propose to judge such things. Thus,
abortion may be moral or immoral according to code we employ but ethics tells us why
we call it so and how we made up our minds. As a result, ethics is sometimes called
moral philosophy; we use it to criticize, defend, promote, justify and suggest moral
concepts and to answer questions of morality. Ethics is a normative science. The fact
that ethics is concerned with an end or ideal or standard serves at once to distinguish it
from most of the other sciences. It is a science which lays down rules, laws or axioms or
more strictly, that seeks to define a standard or ideal with reference to which rules or
laws may be formulated. It is the business of normative science to define an ideal, not to
lay down rules for its attainment. For example, Aesthetics is a normative science;
concerned with the standard of beauty; but it is no part of its business to inquire how
beauty is produced. So, with ethics, it discusses the ideal of goodness or rightness and is
not directly concerned with the means by which this ideal may be realized. Ethics
discusses man’s habits and customs, or in other words, their characters, the principles
on which they habitually act, and considers what constitutes the rightness or wrongness
of these principles, the good or evil of these habits.

Logic: Logic studies truth. Logic is the art of reasoning or art of thinking. All reasoning
is thinking, all thinking is not reasoning. Logic has been called the science of reasoning.
This is better, but reasoning is a kind of thinking in which inference takes place and
conclusions are drawn from premises. This process is extremely complex, characterized
by a combination of trial and error, occasionally illuminated by flashes of insight.
Logicians are not concerned with the ways in which the mind arrives at its conclusions
in the process of reasoning; they are concerned only with the correctness of the
completed process. The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct
from incorrect reasoning is the central issue with which logic deals. Logic has two types:
deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves examining a general
case, deducing a general set of rules or principles, and then applying these rules to
specific cases. Inductive reasoning involves taking specific examples and considering the
general principles, rules, or cases that caused them.

10
Axiology: Axiology is the branch of philosophy that considers the study of principles
and values. These values are divided into two main kinds: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is
the questioning of morals and personal values. Aesthetics is the examination of what is
beautiful, enjoyable, or tasteful. In axiology education is more than just about
knowledge but also quality of life.

Political Philosophy: Political Philosophy studies political government, laws, liberty,

justice, rights, authority, political states and systems, ethics, and more. It explores the
concepts of why we need governments, the role played by governments, what are its
constituents, amongst others.

Summary:
● Epistemology: Science of Knowledge: Nature, limitations, falsehood, validity;
how we acquire knowledge, how knowledge relates to notions like justification,
truth, and belief, and how and where it falls in the spectrum of certainty and
error
● Metaphysics: Study of existence, reality, nature of being, physical world and the
universe
● Ethics: Area of philosophy which investigates the principles governing human
actions in terms of their goodness, badness, rightness, and wrongness, duties
and obligations. Scene of human behavior; what ought to be; discovering the
principles that should govern human conduct investigation of value judgment.
It is a science which lays down rules, laws or axioms or more strictly, that seeks
to define a standard or ideal with reference to which rules or laws may be
formulated.
● Morality is the right or wrong of an action whereas Ethics is the study of such
standards as we use or propose to judge such things
● Logic: Study of truth; Science of reasoning; correctness is priority; The study of
the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect
reasoning is the central issue with which logic deals. Logic has two types:
deductive and inductive reasoning.

11
 ● Axiology: Study of principles and values; ethics and aesthetics
● Political Philosophy: Studies political government, laws, liberty, justice, rights,
authority, political states and systems, ethics, and more

1.6 Characteristics of Philosophy (Nature and Scope)

● Knowledge is the most important discussing matter of philosophy. It discusses

the ins and outs of knowledge.

● The prime concern of philosophy is life. Nothing in the universe is beyond life
and nothing in life is beyond philosophy. Moreover, philosophy is the criticism
and interpretation of life. It enquires into the nature, meaning, purpose, origin
and destiny of human life.

● The chief instrument of philosophy is logic. Being logical, it does not want to
believe anything without logic. Its method is rational speculation, logical analysis
and synthesis.

● Philosophy is methodical, based on science

● Philosophy has a close affinity with psychology

● Philosophy and literature are closely related to each other; philosophy is often
revealed through literary works.

● Philosophy also deals with science. It tries to find out the origin of science, and
the possibility of changing the methods of science.

Summary:
● Characterized by knowledge
● Concerns life
● Chief instrument is logic
● Methodical, based on Science

12
Ethics

1.7 Definition of Ethics

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behavior or conduct of an activity.
The word ethics implies a system of accepted beliefs that control our behavior, especially
when a decision is based on morals.

The word, Morality on the other hand implies a set of personal or social standards for
good or bad behavior. Morality is based on an individual’s mindset and basic human
instinct.

1.8 Moral Philosophy

The field of ethics, or moral philosophy, investigates theories that can systematically
describe what makes acts right or wrong. Moral Philosophy is the rational study of the
meaning and justification of moral claims. A moral claim evaluates the rightness or
wrongness of an action or a person’s character. Moral philosophy is usually divided into
three distinct subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Moral
philosophy is usually divided into three categories:

● Metaethics: Investigates where our moral values, language, and principles

come from and what they mean; it is concerned with “what is morality?” rather
than “what is moral?”
● Applied ethics: Seeks to apply philosophical tools to examine specific
controversial issues and provide practical solutions to moral problems
● Normative ethics: Normative ethics investigates the moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct. Theories within normative ethics include
utilitarianism, consequentialism, contractualism, virtue ethics, and more.

Value theory is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all
varieties, questions that often cross the boundaries between normative ethics and the
metaethical. It asks how and why people value something, be it a person, idea, or object;
thus both moral and natural goods are equally relevant to value theory.

13
 Summary:
● Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behavior or conduct of an
activity.
● Moral philosophy investigates theories that can systematically describe what
makes acts right or wrong. Moral Philosophy is the rational study of the
meaning and justification of moral claims.
● Metaethics: Investigates where our moral values, language, and principles
come from and what they mean
● Applied ethics: Seeks to apply philosophical tools to examine specific
controversial issues and provide practical solutions to moral problems
● Normative ethics: Normative ethics investigates the moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct
● Value theory is concerned with theoretical questions about value and
goodness of all varieties

1.9 Nature of Moral judgements and reactions

Ethics is a science of morality and it discusses the contents of moral consciousness and
the various problems of moral consciousness. Moral consciousness is the consciousness
of right and wrong. It involves three factors:

● Cognitive or intellectual: Moral Judgment

● Affective or emotional: Moral sentiment
● Conative or volitional: Moral obligation

Moral judgment is the main cognitive factor in moral consciousness. It involves

intuition of moral standard by reason and comparison of a voluntary action with it. It
also involves evaluation of voluntary action as right and wrong. The emotional factors
include the moral sentiments; moral judgements are followed by moral sentiments and
not vice versa. Moral obligation is the main conative factor of moral consciousness. It
involves the moral impulse to do the right action. We feel we are under moral
obligations to do what is right and avoid what is wrong.

14
Meaning of moral judgment: Moral judgment is the judgment which deals with the
moral value or quality of an action. It is a judgment of value and it evaluates the
rightness or wrongness of our actions. When we analyze a moral judgment then we find
that it contains:

● A subject which will be judged

● An object whose action will be judged
● A standard in conformity to which the action of the subject will be judged
● A power of judging the action as required

Moral judgment is the judgment of the moral quality of voluntary habitual actions.
Generally, a moral judgment is given on the voluntary and habitual actions of a rational
being. The voluntary actions of a rational person which involve deliberation, choice, and
resolution, have the moral quality of rightness and wrongness. They are considered to be
right or wrong with the reference to the moral standard. On the basis of this standard,
moral judgment is given. If the voluntary actions conform with the standard or the ideal,
then the moral judgment will express it as the right action. If the action has conflict with
the standard or norms, then the moral judgment will express it as wrong. So, moral
judgment involves comparison of voluntary acts with the moral standard.

Moral judgment is active in nature as it is given upon voluntary and habitual acts of
persons and not upon their passive experiences. Moral judgment is social in character
as voluntary acts of a person being right or wrong more or less affects the interest of
others. Man is a social being. His rights and duties of actions rise out of his relation to
other persons in society. So, moral judgment, apart from society, is inconceivable. Moral
judgment can be said to be obligatory in character as a judgment can be given as right,
while we feel the moral obligation to do it. Similarly, moral judgment is given on an act
as wrong, when we feel the moral obligation to refrain from it. Thus, moral judgment is
always accompanied by the sense of duty or moral obligation. And this moral obligation
is essentially self-imposed.

Nature of moral judgment: Moral judgment is a judgment of values. It is distinct

from the judgment of facts. A Judgment of value is a judgment of “what ought to be”.

15
But a judgment of fact is a judgment of “what is”. Judgment of fact is a descriptive
judgment, while moral judgment is an appreciative or critical judgment. So, moral
judgment is a mental act of pronouncing a particular action to be right or wrong.
According to Mackenzie, moral judgment is not merely to state the nature of some
object, but to compare it with a standard and to pronounce it to be good or evil, right or
wrong. So, it is normative.

Moral judgment is inferential in nature, involving the application of a standard to a

particular action. But in the language of Bradley, ordinarily moral judgment is intuitive
and immediate as we intuitively bring an action under a moral rule recognized by the
community and judge it to be right or wrong. It is only in difficult or doubtful cases that
we consciously compare an action with the moral ideal and judge it as right or wrong.
Hence, we can find out that a moral judgment presupposes a subject, who judges an
object that is judged, a standard according to which an action is judged.

It is important to observe that moral judgment is distinguished from logical and

aesthetical judgment. As we know Ethics, Logic and Aesthetics are normative science,
and accordingly they have three supreme norms and ideals of life. Ethics is concerned
with the ideals of Highest Good, logic is concerned with the ideal of Truth and aesthetics
is concerned with the ideal of Beauty. It is true that all of them are appreciative or
critical of judgment. But moral judgments are always accompanied by moral obligation
and moral sentiments, which are not accompanied by logical and aesthetic judgments.
When we judge an action to be right, we feel a moral obligation to perform it and have a
feeling of approval. If we judge an action to be wrong, we feel that under moral
obligation we are not to perform it and therefore, we have a feeling of disapproval.
Feeling of approval, disapproval, rightness, wrongness etc. are called moral sentiments.
Thus, moral judgments are obligatory in character and are accompanied by moral
sentiments. So, they differ from logical and aesthetic judgments which are not
accompanied by moral obligation and moral sentiments. Moral judgements, whether
something is good or bad in its own right are contained wholly in the field of ethics. In
the process of reasoning we find different classes of judgements and they are usually
judgments of facts. But moral judgment as a judgment of value is concerned with what

16
ought to be. It judges our actions ought to be. It has distinctive features. It is critical and
appreciative. It is the mental act of discerning and pronouncing a particular action to be
right or wrong. After evaluation and deliberation actions are to be judged in conformity
with a standard. ‘To speak the truth is always right’ is a moral judgment. Moral
judgment differs from judgment of fact which is descriptive judgment and it describes
what is. Judgements of facts are more objective because they depend on the real nature
of the world. For example ‘Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen’. Moral judgment
is inferential in character though the element of inference generally remains implicit. It
involves the application of a standard to a particular action. When we perceive a
voluntary action, we compare it with the moral standard and we judge whether the
action is in conformity with it or not. Ordinarily moral judgements are intuitive and
immediate. F.H. Bradley says that they are intuitive subsumptions. But in complex and
doubtful cases the whole process becomes explicit and reflective. In complicated
circumstances the moral standard is explicitly held before the mind and applied to the
cases under consideration.

Elements of Moral Judgment:

● Moral Imagination: Ability to see that business and moral relationships are
intertwined; Recognizing that moral issues exist in day to day life
● Moral identification and ordering: Identify and prioritize issues; Distinguish
valid from rhetorical
● Moral evaluation: Arriving at practical decisions based on reasoning; Consistency
and coherence is key
● Tolerance of Moral ambiguity: Even though if others disagree or in case not
having clear answers, one has to be ethical
● Integration of Managerial and Moral competence: Most ethical standards are
based on economic decisions. Moral competence should be an integral part of
Managerial and leadership competence
● Moral obligation: Foundation to all other elements; Person with moral obligation
will feel necessity and / or urgency to act rightfully in fairness to all with utmost
concern for justice; Motivating and the driving force behind making moral

17
 judgments and implementing ethical decisions

Object and Subject of Moral Judgment:

● Object: Voluntary actions (Freedom of will); Internal factors of voluntary

actions:
○ Mental stage (motive, intention, desire, deliberation, choice, resolution)
○ Organic stage (bodily action)
○ External stage (consequence)
○ Do we judge an act by its motive, intent or by its consequence?
○ Whether the object is Motive or consequence?
● Subject: Rational self or ideal self
● Morality vs law: Eg: Abortion

Summary:
● Moral consciousness is the consciousness of right and wrong. It involves three
factors:
○ Cognitive: Moral Judgment
○ Affective: Moral sentiment
○ Conative: Moral obligation
● Moral judgment is the main cognitive factor in moral consciousness. Moral
judgment is the judgment which deals with the moral value or quality of an
action. It involves: Subject, Object, Standard, Power
● Moral judgment is the judgment of the moral quality of voluntary habitual
actions; If the voluntary actions conform with the standard or the ideal, then
the moral judgment will express it as the right action. If the action has conflict
with the standard or norms, then the moral judgment will express it as wrong.
● Moral judgments are passed on voluntary and habitual actions; Non voluntary
actions are outside the scope of moral judgment
● Active in nature
● Social in character
● Obligatory in character; Sense of duty

18
● Accompanied by Moral sentiments
● Self Imposed
● Judgment of values vs. Judgment of facts
● Inferential
● Intuitive
● Immediate
● Critical and appreciative
● Objective validity: An action is right from the standpoint of the universe
● Not determined by subjective inclination and prejudices one may have
● Elements of Moral judgment: Imagination, Ordering, Evaluation, Tolerance,
Integration, Moral obligation
● Subject and Object of Moral Judgment
● Moral judgments (Highest good/ ethics) vs logical judgments (truth) vs
Aesthetics judgements (beauty) vs factual judgments

19
 Research and Publication Ethics
Module 2: Scientific Conduct
Basic details

Module 2 Scientific Conduct

Teaching hours 04

Module 2: Overview of content

Scientific Conduct
1. Ethics with respect to Science and Research
2. Intellectual honesty and Research integrity
3. Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP)
4. Redundant publications: Duplicate and overlapping publications, Salami slicing
5. Selective reporting and Misrepresentation of data

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

Ethics in Research https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resourc

es/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Ethics in Research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbMR05

NkFE0
2.1 Ethics with respect to Science and Research

The most common way of defining ethics is norms for conduct that distinguish
between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The term “Research Ethics” refers to a
wide variety of values, norms, and institutional arrangements that help constitute and
regulate scientific activities. Research ethics is a codification of scientific morality in
practice. In other words, research ethics may be referred to as doing what is morally and
legally right in research. Broadly, there are 3 different perspectives on ethics:

● Ethics as a disposition: Moral virtues are inherently present, just have to dispose
● Ethics as duty: It is one’s duty to act in a way that upholds values
● Ethics as utilitarian: Relates to principles of ethical conduct that benefits majority
of stakeholders at large

Objectives of Research ethics: [PSE] [Clue: PSG not having ethics]

● Protect human participants

● Ensure research is conducted in such a way that it serves interests of all
stakeholders, society at large
● Examine research activities for ethical soundness

It is important to adhere to ethical norms in research: [PPCAM] [PPHegde

Camera]

1. Promotes the aim of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error.
For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting
research data promotes truth and minimizes error.

2. Since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among
many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards
should promote values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust,
accountability, mutual respect, and fairness.

3. Ethical norms must help to ensure that researchers are held accountable to the
public
 4. Ethical norms in research should also help to build public support for research.
People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and
integrity of research.

5. Promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social
responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public
health and safety.

2.1.1 Ethical Principles [HOICOTLAICRRR] [Head of the institute should

participate in CO setting and TLA process in Intelligent college thus
becoming hit like RRR movie]

Honesty: Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data,
results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or
misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public.

Objectivity: Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data

interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and
other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize
bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research.

Integrity: Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for
consistency of thought and action.

Carefulness: Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine
your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities,
such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Openness: Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new
ideas.

Transparency: Disclose methods, materials, assumptions, analyses, and other

information needed to evaluate your research.
Accountability: Take responsibility for your part in research and be prepared to give
an account (i.e. an explanation or justification) of what you did on a research project
and why.

Intellectual Property: Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual

property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give
proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality: Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants

submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient
records.

Responsible Publication: Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not

to advance just your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible Mentoring: Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote

their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions.

Respect for Colleagues: Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly

Social Responsibility: Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social
harms through research, public education, and advocacy.

Non-Discrimination: Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the

basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and
integrity.

Competence: Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise
through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as
a whole.

Legality: Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Animal Care: Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research.
Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.
Human Subjects protection: When conducting research on human subjects,
minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and
autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute
the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

Summary:
● Ethics: Moral code to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable
behavior; States what is legally and morally right; concerned with values that
constitute and regulate scientific activities; Scientific morality
● Ethics as disposition (inherent), duty (uphold values) and utilitarian
(stakeholders)
● Objectives: Protect participants, Ensure societal benefit, Examine for Ethical
soundness
● Ethical norms should: Promote aim of research, Encourage collaboration,
Accountability, Gain public support, Promote social and ethical values
● Ethical principles: Honesty, Competence, Relevance, Transparency, Respect,
Impartiality, Accountability, Responsible publication and so on

2.2 Intellectual honesty and Research integrity

Intellectual Honesty: Researchers have a moral duty to be honest. This duty is

especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others.
Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A
person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that
truth.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an

unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways
including: [IOUP] [Soup with I]

● Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of
truth
 ● Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such
things may contradict one's hypothesis
● Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading
impressions or to support one view over another
● References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is
avoided

Intellectual Honesty (Individual level) [APAPCCDOOHICA] [Opening Cafe

coffee day in Andhra pradesh with High command’s acknowledgement]

● Research should be based on originality and innovation

● Accuracy in representing contributions

● Protect identity of respondent

● Due acknowledgement of web based resources

● No to Plagiarism

● Citing all related papers including those submitted, but not accepted

● Revealing conflict of interest or potential ones

● Avoid duplicate publication

● Avoid Guest, Ghost and Gift authorship

● Adopt best practices recommended by COPE (Submit, encourage and behavior)

● Respect Intellectual property

● Be honest and objective while submission

● All communication between author and journal should be treated as confidential

Intellectual Honesty (Publisher level) [ACCCBV] [In constructing CCD, use

ACC cement because it will ensure victory]
 ● Adherence to ethical practices (COPE or WAME)

● Reveal conflict of interest

● Treat all information in the article as confidential

● Be vigilant in spotting ethical misconduct

● Motive is building better society, not commercial purpose

● Avoid predatory or bogus journals

Research integrity: Research integrity may be defined as active adherence to the

ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of
research:

● By active adherence we mean adoption of the principles and practices as a

personal credo, not simply accepting them as impositions by rule makers

● By ethical principles we mean honesty, trustworthiness, and high regard for the
scientific record

The integrity of research depends on honesty and trust. Research integrity includes:

● Use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing and evaluating

research
● Reporting research results with particular attention to rules, regulations and
guidelines
● Following commonly accepted professional codes or norms

Research integrity means conducting research according to the highest professional and
ethical standards, so that the results are trustworthy. It concerns the behavior of
researchers at all stages of the research life-cycle, including:

● Declaring competing interests

● Data collection and data management
● Using appropriate methodology
 ● Drawing conclusions from results
● Writing up research findings

Research integrity can be confused with research ethics and publishing ethics. Although
these terms are connected, there are differences. Research ethics is specifically
concerned with the ethical issues which may arise when conducting research involving
animals or human subjects.

“For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It

involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for
one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct”.
These practices include:

Integrity at individual level:

● Honesty and fairness in proposing, performing, and reporting research

● Accuracy and fairness in representing contributions to research proposals and

reports

● Proficiency and fairness in peer review

● Collegiality in scientific interactions, communications and sharing of resources

● Disclosure of conflicts of interest

● Protection of human subjects in the conduct of research

● Humane care of animals in the conduct of research

● Adherence to the mutual responsibilities of mentors and trainees

While science encourages vigorous defense of one's ideas and work, ultimately research
integrity means examining the data with objectivity and being guided by the results
rather than by preconceived notions.
Integrity at institutional level:

● Provide leadership

● Encourage respect for everyone

● Promote productive interactions

● Adherence to rules

● Anticipate, reveal and manage individual and institutional conflict of interest

● Adherence to rule based mechanism

● Timely and thorough investigations and appropriate administrative actions in

relation to scientific misconduct

● Offer educational opportunities in promoting integrity

● Monitor and evaluate the ecosystem for continuous quality improvement

Publishing ethics is related to the integrity of the publication process, rather than the
conduct of the research itself. Publishing ethics cover a range of issues, such as:

● Dual submission

● Authorship disputes

● Bias in peer review

● Breaches of confidentiality in peer review

Summary:
● Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of
ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the
truth, states that truth.

● Intellectual honesty can be demonstrated by creating an ecosystem which

 promotes pursuit of truth, discourages plagiarism, ensures unbiased
presentation of facts and so on

● Intellectual honesty is to be promoted at both individual and publisher level

● Research integrity may be defined as active adherence to the ethical principles

and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research

● Adopting, not just acceptance; Following professional codes, imbibing ethical

values, attention to rules, honest and verifiable methods

● Research integrity is to be promoted at both individual and institutional level

2.3 Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP)

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and
ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. Research related
misconduct can occur at any stage of the research cycle. Research is the driving force for
innovations and technical advancement in the world. Research misconduct is defined as
“fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research,
or in reporting of research results”. It is on the rise because:

● Increasing emphasis on research by academic institutions

● Difficulty in publishing in standard journals
● Constant pressure in the academic ecosystem
● Lack of systematic reporting standards

Some common examples are: Misappropriation of Ideas, Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism,

Falsification of Data, Failure to Support Validation of Your Research and so on
1. Falsification: Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not
accurately represented in the research record.
2. Fabrication: Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data,
observations, or characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of data or
running of experiments. Claims about results need to be made on complete data
sets (as is normally assumed), where claims made based on incomplete or
assumed results is a form of fabrication. The validity of knowledge created by
science and the credibility of science, truth and trust, are undermined by
fabrication. When detected, the sanctions for perpetrators can be severe and
articles will be retracted. Not only does fabrication affect scientific careers, but
when fabricated data is presented to be real and is consequently used in real-life
practice it can have life-threatening consequences. One case of research
misconduct estimates that up to 800,000 lives were lost due to fabrication of
data of a single perpetrator.
3. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own,
with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full
acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in
manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition. It paints
a misleading picture of a researcher's own contribution.
Plagiarism can involve copying words or images directly, paraphrasing sentences

or passages, or co-opting someone else’s ideas without citing the original work. In

academic writing, these are various types of plagiarism you might encounter:

● Global plagiarism means plagiarizing an entire text. This includes

purchasing an essay or turning in an assignment completed by someone

else.

● Patchwork or mosaic plagiarism means copying phrases, passages,

and ideas from different sources and compiling them into a new text.

● Incremental plagiarism means inserting a small amount of plagiarized

content in a mostly original text.

● Self-plagiarism means recycling your own previous work that you’ve

already submitted or published.

 ● Plagiarism can be avoided by adopting following tips: Don’t just copy, Use

a range of sources, Develop your own style, Use quotation marks, Keep

good quality notes.

Summary:
● Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct
and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research
● Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting of research results
● Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
● Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data, observations, or
characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of data or running of
experiments
● Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own
● Types of Plagiarism: Global: Entire text, Patchwork: From different sources,
Incremental: Small part in a largely original text, Self: Recycling one’s previous
work

2.4 Redundant publications: Duplicate and overlapping publications, Salami

slicing

Redundant publications: Duplicate and overlapping publications

● Redundant publication (salami publishing) is publication of a paper that

overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic form
● It occurs when 2 or more papers without appropriate full cross reference, share
the same hypothesis, data, sample size, methodology or similar results and
conclusions
 ● One study is split into several parts and submitted to two or more journals, Or
the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper
cross-referencing, permission or justification.
● Factors leading to redundant publication:
○ Publishing papers from one’s own dissertation
○ Reporting on a longitudinal program of study
○ Writing same content in various languages
○ Writing same content for different audiences
● Following problem are created because of redundant publications:
○ Precious time being wasted of peer-reviewers and editors
○ Leads to flawed meta-analysis
○ Distort academic reward systems
○ Infringement of copyright
○ Inflates scientific literature for no benefits other than the author

Duplicate and Overlapping publications:

● Duplicate (form of redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses

substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate
references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple
journals, to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published
paper.
● Secondary publication is an acceptable type of publication – the publication
of the same article for different audiences – for example, in a different journal or
in a different language
● Secondary publication is acceptable if: Approval from both editors, Different
audience, Faithful reflection of data, Primary reference is stated in footnote of
title page
● How to identify duplicate publications?
○ Reproduction of an article already published using identical sample and
outcomes
○ Assembly of 2 or more articles to produce new one
 ○ Reporting different outcomes from same study sample
○ New data is added to a preliminary article
○ Reporting part of a large trial and reporting identical outcomes
● Problems caused by duplicate publication:
○ They waste finite resources. Journals have a limited number of pages
available and duplicate submissions will be reviewed twice, indexed twice,
copyedited twice, distributed twice and so on.
○ They overload available information. It simply takes longer to find what
you need.
○ They overemphasize the findings
○ Duplicate publications contravene copyright law, if you have signed your
copyright across to another journal. This is less of a problem these days
with Open Access, where the requirement for an author to hand over
copyright is becoming rare
● How to avoid duplicate publications?
○ No need to repeat unless further confirmation
○ Cite all related papers, including those submitted, but not yet accepted
○ Full disclosure about previous publications
○ Being clear about new information
○ Disclose full details of related papers
○ Emphasis on quality over quantity
○ Awareness programs
○ Strict rules and penalties
● Overlapping publication: For research reports: when two (or more) articles
report the same analysis of the same data set, or contain relatively small amounts
of new data or alternative analyses compared with the original publication,
particularly when this is done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to
realize that some of the findings have been published before
● For reviews and editorials: when two (or more) review articles or editorials
include material that has been published elsewhere by the author(s)
Salami Slicing
● Publication of two or more articles derived from a single study
● Articles of such type report on data collected from a single study split into several
segments just large enough to gain reasonable results and conclusions, also
known as “minimal publishable unit”
● The problematic act of dividing a research report in small units for the sake of
multiple publications
● Splitting of data derived from a single research idea into multiple smaller
“publishable” units or “slices
● Involves breaking up or segmenting a large study in to two or more publications
● Why is it bad?
○ Distortion of the literature by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that
data presented in each salami slice (i.e., journal article) is derived from a
different subject sample
○ Skews the scientific database
○ Creates repetition that wastes readers’ time as well as the time of editors
and reviewers, who must handle each paper separately
○ Inflates the author’s citation record
● When is it justified?
○ If a major research project is so extensive that it involves several research
groups across disciplines, then it is justified that there are multiple
publications to convey the overall impact of the research

Summary:
● Redundant publication (salami publishing) is publication of a paper that
overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic form
● Duplicate (form of redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses
substantial parts of their own published work without providing the
appropriate references
● Factors: Own dissertation, Different audiences, Different languages
 ● Problems caused: Waste resources, Overload inf, Overemphasize findings,
Contravene copyright laws, Distort academic reward systems
● How to avoid: Cite, Disclosure, Being clear, Awareness, Strict rules and
penalties
● Secondary publication is an acceptable type of publication – the publication of
the same article for different audiences
● Overlapping publication is when two (or more) articles report the same analysis
of the same data set
● Salami Slicing: Publication of two or more articles derived from a single study
● Why bad?: Repetition, Inflates academic record, skews database, Distortion of
literature

2.5 Selective reporting and misrepresentation of data

● Selective reporting bias is when results from scientific research are deliberately
not fully or accurately reported, in order to suppress negative or undesirable
findings
● Selective reporting bias can incorporate a number of other types of bias, such as:
○ Publication bias: Results of negative clinical trials are not published or
under-published
○ Outcome reporting bias: Results of negative clinical trials are
cherry-picked or distorted to improve the overall findings
○ Spin: Communicating results in a way which amplifies positive findings
or tones down negative findings
○ Citation bias: Positive studies are more likely to be cited than negative
studies
○ Design bias: Research team creates the process in which the experiment
will be performed. If there isn’t a wide enough selection of demographics
and a large enough population in the data pool, design bias could exist.
This is where selective reporting also sneaks in. If a population of people
 are omitted that could be affected by the study, the final outcome could be
invalid.
○ Procedural bias: Procedural bias can occur when a researcher decides
that the next step in an experiment should go a predetermined way,
whether the results of the previous step demonstrate that direction or not.
This frequently happens when the researcher is rushed, a time limit is in
place, resources and funds have to be considered, or faulty equipment is
used.
○ Personal biases: The most difficult types of biases to avoid are personal
biases because they are part of the researcher’s character the scholar may
not even realize they exist. Personal bias influences data collection when
the interviewer is unconsciously or purposely using body language to get
the respondent to answer a question in a certain way, or they can occur
when the researcher is determining the importance of qualitative data and
chooses to omit data because of a stereotype or belief they have that a
certain demographic is not as important as another.
● Factors leading to Selective reporting:
○ Omitting outcomes from the final publication of a study because of a
selective decision that those findings were not significant enough to
warrant being included in the article
○ Choosing data based on personal choices rather than including all
collected data for a clear picture
○ Only reporting subsets of the data collected instead of using all the data to
demonstrate a full understanding of a subject
○ Choosing to under-report data because of a decision that the changes in
the collected information were not deemed to be significant by the
researcher

Misrepresentation of data:

● Misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted inference from data, creating

deceptive graphs of figures, and using suggestive language for rhetorical effect;
 Interpretation of the results that is not consistent with the actual results of the
study. This type of spin will alter the readers' critical appraisal of the study and
could impact the interpretation of evidence synthesis.
● There are three types of misrepresentations:
○ Innocent misrepresentation: False claim regarding a study when
knows it isn't true
○ Negligent misrepresentation
○ Fraudulent misrepresentation
● Misrepresentation of data is ‘communicating honestly reported data in a
deceptive manner.’ But what is deceptive communication? The use of statistics
presents researchers with numerous opportunities to misrepresent data. For
example, one might use a statistical technique, such as multiple regression or the
analysis of variance, to make one's results appear more significant or convincing
than they really are. Or one might eliminate (or trim) outliers when ‘cleaning up’
raw data. Other ways of misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted
inference from data, creating deceptive graphs of figures, and using suggestive
language for rhetorical effect.
● Manipulation of images:
○ Image tampering
○ Usage of filters to manipulate images
○ Resizing of image
○ Using same image to represent different results
○ Distorting visual representation such as increasing brightness
● Guidelines to prevent manipulation of images:
○ Authors must provide original unprocessed images
○ Journal guidelines deal with the subject
○ Adjustments are only acceptable if they apple equally across the entire
image
○ Checking correctness of images
● How to avoid data misrepresentation?
○ Analyze complete data
 ○ Use appropriate tools depending on type of data
○ Put data in context
○ Avoid patterns of association between only 2 points
○ Data should be presented such that it is easily understandable
○ All data fields be appropriately labeled
○ Any special message if associated with data, should be clearly specified
● Data access and retention
○ Purpose: Further use
○ All data in relation to a research paper should be retained for a reasonable
time after publication

Summary:
● Selective reporting bias is when results from scientific research are deliberately
not fully or accurately reported in order to suppress negative or undesirable
findings
● Types: Publication, Outcome reporting, Spin, Citation, Design, Procedural,
Personal
● Factors: Under-reporting, Selective reporting, Selective choice making in use of
data, Selective decision making in publishing findings
● Misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted inference from data,
creating deceptive graphs, using suggestive language and so on
● Why not? - Alter Critical appraisal, Impact Evidence synthesis
● Types: Innocent, Negligent, Fraudulent
● How? - Use of statistics, Trimming, Manipulating images, and so on
● Manipulation of images: Image tampering, Resizing, Use of filter, Distorting
image properties, Duplication
● How to prevent it (Publisher)? - Strict journal guidelines, Control mechanism,
Awareness, Collecting original images, Changes to be made across the whole
image
● How to avoid it (Author)? - Appropriate tools, Contextual data, Easy
representation
● Data access and retention: Future use
 Research and Publication Ethics
Module 3: Publication Ethics
Basic details

Module 3 Publication Ethics

Teaching hours 07

Module 3: Overview of content

Scientific Conduct
1. Publication ethics: Definition, Introduction and Importance
2. Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME etc
3. Conflict of Interest
4. Publication Misconduct: Definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behavior
and vice versa, types
5. Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributorship
6. Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals
7. Predatory publishers and journals

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

3.1 Publication ethics: Definition, Introduction and importance

Definition and Introduction:

● Ethical code of conduct that binds researcher at every stage

● Publication ethics are rules of conduct generally agreed upon when publishing
results of scientific research or other scholarly work.
● Generally it is a standard that protects intellectual property and forbids the
re-publication of another's work without proper credit. It also forbids the use of
plagiarism of another's efforts.
● The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an international forum for
editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals that provide the “code of
conduct” and “best practice guidelines” that define publication ethics and advises
editors on how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct
● In India, UGC published Good Academic Research Practices (GARP) which
provides framework for enhancing research integrity by focusing on potential
threats and good practices at each and every stage
● Publication ethics should promote Research Integrity, which can be done by
promoting values in the conduct and management of research, such as Openness,
Honesty, Accountability, Transparency, Impartiality, Integrity, Carefulness,
Independence, Rigour and so on
● Publication misconduct includes Research fraud, Redundant publication,
Simultaneous publication, Authorship abuse, Self citation, Plagiarism and so on
● The Ethics committee plays an important role in formulating, implementing and
regulating Publication ethics. UGC has drafted a common policy as follows:
○ All Universities in India must be equipped with Research ethics committee
at departmental level
○ UGC recommends DAIP and IAIP panels should be present (Departmental
and Institutional Academic Integrity Panel)
○ Research protocols may be submitted to such committees for
consideration, guidance, improvement and approval before
commencement of the study
 ○ Research ethics committee shall
■ Promote awareness programs regarding do’s and don'ts of the
research
■ Act as mediators or advisors in disputed cases through DAIP and
IAIP
■ Encourage organizational research culture based upon defensible
standards of research practices
■ Show commitment to high quality, transparent and accountable
research ethics throughout India
■ Monitor progress of ongoing studies
■ Organize seminar/ awareness programs on Research and
Publication ethics for all
○ Researcher responsibilities:
■ Update committee regarding events, issues and status of research
■ Send a copy of thesis
■ Send details of all publications

Importance of Publication ethics:

● Norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of
error
● Prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data
promote the truth and minimize error
● Promotes values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust,
accountability, mutual respect, and fairness
● Helps to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public
● Helps to build public support for research
● Promotes a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social
responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public
health and safety.
3.2 Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME

● COPE: Committee on Publication ethics was founded in 1997 to address

breaches in research and publication ethics
● Supports and encourages editors to report, catalog and instigate investigations in
relation to research misconduct
● COPE has published two codes of conduct:
○ Code of Conduct for editors
○ Code of Conduct for publishers
● COPE in collaboration with WAME (World association of medical editors) and
others have developed policy on “Principles of Transparency and best practice in
scholarly publishing” consisting of 16 essential parameters:
○ Journal website:
■ It must not contain information that might mislead readers or
authors, including any attempt to mimic another
journal/publisher’s site
■ ‘Aims & Scope’ statement
■ Statement on what a journal will consider for publication including
authorship criteria (e.g., not considering multiple submissions,
redundant publications) to be included
■ ISSNs should be clearly displayed (separate for print and
electronic).
○ Name of Journal: The Journal name shall be unique and not be one that is
easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential
authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other
journals
○ Process of peer review: Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on
individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field who are not part
of the journal’s editorial staff
■ Journal content must be clearly marked as whether peer reviewed
or not.
 ■ All processes as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer
review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal website,
including the method of peer review used
■ Journal websites should not guarantee manuscript acceptance or
very short peer review times
○ Information about ownership and/ or management
○ Governing body: Members are recognized experts in the subject areas
included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the
journal’s editorial board or other governing body shall be provided on the
journal’s website.
○ Editorial team: Full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors
○ Copyright and Licensing:
■ The policy for copyright shall be clearly stated in the author
guidelines and the copyright holder named on all published articles
■ Likewise, licensing information shall be clearly described in
guidelines on the website, and licensing terms shall be indicated on
all published articles, both HTML and PDFs
■ If authors are allowed to publish under a Creative Commons license
then any specific license requirements shall be noted
■ Any policies on posting of final accepted versions or published
articles on third party repositories shall be clearly stated.
○ Author fees:
■ Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing
and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in
a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting
their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they
begin preparing their manuscript for submission. If no such fees
are charged that should also be clearly stated.
○ Process in relation to addressal of Research misconduct: Publishers and
editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication
of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism,
 citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In
no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or
knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a
journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research
misconduct relating to a published article in their journal, the publisher or
editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with
allegations.
○ Publication ethics: A journal shall also have policies on publishing ethics.
These should be clearly visible on its website, and should refer to:
■ Journal policies on authorship and contributorship
■ How the journal will handle complaints and appeals
■ Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests
■ Journal policies on data sharing and reproducibility
■ Journal’s policy on ethical oversight
■ Journal’s policy on intellectual property
■ Journal’s options for post-publication discussions and corrections
○ Publication schedule: The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be
clearly indicated
○ Access: The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are
available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay
per view fees shall be stated
○ Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of
access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via
CLOCKSS or PubMedCentral) in the event a journal is no longer published
shall be clearly indicated
○ Revenue sources: Business models or revenue sources (e.g., author fees,
subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and
organizational support) shall be clearly stated or otherwise evident on the
journal’s website. Publishing fees or waiver status should not influence
editorial decision making.
○ Advertising: Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant,
 including what types of adverts will be considered, who makes decisions
regarding accepting adverts and whether they are linked to content or
reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at random. Advertisements
should not be related in any way to editorial decision making and shall be
kept separate from the published content.
○ Direct marketing: Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of
manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be
appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive. Information provided about
the publisher or journal is expected to be truthful and not misleading for
readers or authors.
● COPE membership has following benefits:
○ Annual seminar for free
○ Website
○ Publication ethics audit tool
○ Access to COPE newsletter
○ E-learning programs
● CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL
EDITORS
○ Code of Conduct:
○ Should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors
○ Strive to constantly improve their journal
○ Have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish
○ Champion freedom of expression
○ Maintain the integrity of the academic record
○ Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical
standards
○ Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and
apologies when needed
○ Accountable for everything published in their journals
○ Best practice for editors would include:
○ Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial
 board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
○ Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication
misconduct
○ Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
○ Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been
reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers
○ Ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly
identified
○ Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from
members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and
unbiased evaluation
○ Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be
based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s
validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal
○ A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors
should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described
processes
○ Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against
editorial decisions
○ Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions
○ Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles
○ Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing
interests before agreeing to review a submission
○ Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible
research and publication misconduct raised by submissions
○ Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating
this on the basis of reviewer performance
○ Acting as ambassadors for the journal
○ Supporting and promoting the journal
○ Communicating regularly with their journal’s owner and publisher
○ Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair,
 unbiased and timely
○ Reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is
possible
○ Having systems in place to detect falsified data
○ Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an
appropriate body
○ Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of
misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and
unpublished papers
○ Taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication
○ Ensuring that published material is securely archived
○ Adopting systems for detecting plagiarism
○ Supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been
the victims of plagiarism
○ Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond
○ Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded
● WAME was established in 1955
● AIM:
○ Facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of
peer reviewed journals, improve editorial standards and promote
professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism and
self regulation
○ Encourage research on principles and practice of medical editing
● Membership is free and open to all; small journals are well represented
● WAME Ethics and Policy committee covers broad areas like:
○ Ethics and professionalism
○ Authors
○ Conflict of interest
○ Global health and politics
○ Peer review
○ Policy archives
3.3 Conflicts of interest

● Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that
are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is
published
● Conflicts of interest in research are situations where professional objectivity may
be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, because of competing
financial, personal, or professional connections or personal values and stands. A
conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary
interest may be influenced by a secondary interest.
● May limit objectivity in the publication process
● Types: Financial/ Tangible; Non-financial/ Intangible
● Financial: Sources of funds/grants for the research conducted, receipt of a
consulting fee from a company manufacturing the equipment used in the
research, stocks in such a company, or other financial connections that might
influence an individual's thinking and affect the research outcome. Some journals
may require authors to declare not just any competing financial connections they
may have individually, but also any that their immediate family members
(spouse, parent, or child) may have, since these may also pose indirect conflicts of
interest.
● Non-financial: Personal relationships or professional affiliations; private or
publicly held beliefs and ideologies that can give rise to potential biases;
professional rivalries
● Areas: Personal, Commercial, Political, Academic or Financial
● How to prevent it?
○ All concerned members should declare their interests properly, and should
be published in website
○ Complete disclosure of financial conflicts
○ Recognising scientific merits when conducting evaluation
○ Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed
○ Ensure proper disclosure from the author
 ○ Withdraw from discussions, decisions if found beyond ability or area of
expertise
○ If authors state no conflict of interest, publish confirmation of the same
● How one can identify and appropriately declare conflicts of interest in research:
○ List down all sources of financial support
○ List down any social or personal activities/interests that may be
considered to influence how you conduct your research
○ Review any institutional ties you may have in the present or have had in
the recent past (where you worked/volunteered, etc.) that can be said to
affect your objectivity in your work
○ Review and comply with all the guidelines provided by your target journal
on what they define as conflicts of interest and how they want authors to
disclose them
○ Potential for conflicts and ways to deal with them are constantly evolving.
Keep yourself updated and seek out new information.
○ As per the US Office of Research Integrity, “Having a conflict of interest is
not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is
always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”

3.4 Publication Misconduct: Definition, concept, problems that lead to

unethical behavior and vice versa, types

● Definition: Falsification, Fabrication or Plagairism in proposing, performing, or

reviewing research, or in reporting research results
● Problems that lead to unethical behavior:
○ Fabrication of data
○ Falsification of data
○ Plagiarism
○ Other serious deviations from accepted practices
 ○ Other deception involving manipulation of data or experiments
○ Retaliation for good faith misconduct allegations
○ Interfering with misconduct investigation
○ Covering up misconduct
○ Failing to report misconduct
○ Making inappropriate or false misconduct allegations
○ Misuse of confidential information
○ Misappropriation of funds
○ Misappropriation of property/ destruction/ theft
○ Unethical authorship practices other than plagiarism
○ Misrepresentation of one’s credentials/ qualifications
○ Failure to disclose significant financial or other interests
○ Significant or material violations of regulations, laws or policies pertaining
to human subjects, animal research, biosafety, radiation safety and so on
● Types already covered in Module 2 (Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism)
● Nature of Plagiarism:
○ Word by word copying without acknowledging the source
○ Paraphrasing or abbreviated restatement without acknowledging
○ False citation
○ False data: Academic fraud
○ Unacknowledged multiple submission
○ Unacknowledged multiple authors or collaboration
○ Self Plagiarism/ Double submission
● UGC guidelines on levels of Plagiarism:

UGC recommendations: Plagiarism in submission of Thesis and

Dissertations

Level of similarities Characteristics Penalty

Level 0 Up to 10% No penalty

Level 1 Above 10% - 40% Submit revised script

within a stimulated time
 period not exceeding 6
months

Level 2 Above 40% - 60% Debarred from

submitting revised script
for a period of 1 year

Level 3 Above 60% Registration canceled

UGC recommendations: Plagiarism in Academic and Research

publications

Level of similarities Characteristics Penalty

Level 0 Up to 10% No penalty

Level 1 Above 10% - 40% Withdrawal of

manuscript

Level 2 Above 40% - 60% Withdrawal of

manuscript; Denied one
annual increment; Not
allowed to be a
supervisor for 2 years

Level 3 Above 60% Withdrawal of

manuscript; Denied two
succ annual increment;
Not allowed to be a
supervisor for years

● Similarity checks for plagiarism shall exclude:

○ All quoted work either falling under public domain or reproduced with all
necessary permission and/ or attribution
○ All references, bibliography, table of content, preface and
acknowledgements
○ All small similarities of minor nature (common knowledge or coincidental
terms upto 14 consecutive words)
○ All generic terms, laws, standard symbols and standard equations
● Plagiarism detection is the process of locating instances of plagiarism and/ or
 copyright infringement within a work or document
● Plagiarism detection tools: Turnitin, iThenticate, Plagium and so on

3.5 Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributorship

● Violation of publication ethics is a global problem which includes duplicate

submission, multiple submissions, plagiarism, gift authorship, fake affiliation,
ghost authorship, pressured authorship, salami publication and fraud
(fabrication and falsification) but excludes the honest errors committed by the
authors
○ Data fabrication: Making up data or results
○ Data falsification: Manipulating research outcome via misrepresentation
○ Plagiarism: Presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own
○ Duplicate/ Multiple/ Redundant submission: Submitting the same or a
very similar manuscript to two or more journals
○ Fake affiliation: Wrong author and institution details
○ Salami publication: Publication of two or more articles derived from a
single study
○ Gift authorship: Co-authorship awarded to a person who has not
contributed significantly to the study
○ Ghost authorship: Contribution to produce a paper excluded in the final
publication
○ Guest authorship: Senior authors who are included because of their
respect or influence in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of
publication and/or impact of the paper once published
○ Pressured authorship: When a person uses their position of authority to
obtain authorship
● Causes behind violation: Academic pressure, Career growth, peer pressure,
Incentives and so on
● How to prevent?: DAIP and IAIP, Awareness programs, Counter-measures:
Anti-Plagiarism software, Strict adherence to journal guidelines, Clear authorship
order, Clearance from ethics committee, Informed consent and assent, Obtaining
 rights and permissions wherever required

Authorship and Contributorship

● Authorship refers to list of authors who have contributed to the published work
● Contributorship refers to contributorship statement at the end of the paper,
giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work
● Authorship entails responsibility and accountability
● Author: “A Student or a faculty or a researcher or staff of HEI who claims to be
the creator of the work (intellectual) under consideration”
● Who can be credited as an author?
○ Made substantial contribution in
■ Research study (Design, Data acquisition, Analysis and
Interpretation)
■ Drafting or revising the article for intellectual content
■ Approval of final version
■ Accountable for all aspects of work and Integrity of work
● Types of Authorship
○ Ghost: Authors whose significant contribution is not acknowledged
○ Guest: Authors included solely for the purpose of increasing acceptance
rate of the manuscript
○ Gift: Authors included despite any significant contribution
○ Surrogate: Written by someone else passed off as someone else’s
○ Anonymous: Publishing with anonymity; lacks transparency
● What causes authorship problems?
○ No authors specified
○ Author from unrelated domain
○ Unspecified role in acknowledgement
○ No significant contribution
○ Questionable roles
○ Unable to respond to reviewer’s comments
○ Similar articles published under different author names
 ○ Language quality differs in various sections of manuscript
● COPE guideline to minimize authorship problem
○ Submit: Adopt transparent policy as to who contributed
○ Encourage: Create awareness (ORCID, CRediT)
○ Behavior: Check unusual patterns of behavior
● If a meeting is convened to discuss about authorship involving all authors,
authorship problem may be countered
● WILEY guidelines:
○ Journals must specify clear authorship criteria
○ Journals should require confirmation from authors and co-authors
○ Journals should ask authors for a short description of their contribution
○ Copyright transfer and Exclusive license agreements
○ Journal should require that all authors agree with the order of authorship
○ Encourage towards having unique IDs (ORCID) to bypass matching
author names

3.6 Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals

● What constitutes publication misconduct?
○ Fabrication
○ Falsification
○ Plagiarism
○ Duplicate submission
○ Salami publishing
○ Fake affiliation
○ Authorship problems
○ Violation of generally accepted research practices
○ Failure to adhere to legal requirements
○ Employing inappropriate statistical technique to enhance results
○ Exploring students for own benefit
○ Failure to maintain research data
 ○ Rejecting a manuscript without even reading it
● Responding to allegations of possible misconduct: Role of editorial
○ Journals should have a clear policy on handling misconduct
○ Journals should provide a platform and mechanism to appeal editorial
decisions, facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or
unfounded appeals
○ Journals should have an obligation towards publishing accurate work
○ All allegations of misconduct should be referred to Editor-in-chief
○ Allow appeals to override earlier decisions only in case if new information
emerges
○ Journals should state that Editor’s decision following an appeal is final
○ A letter seeking explanation is to be sent to the person against whom
complaint is made
○ Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers
3.7 Predatory publishers and journals

● Defined as “Systematic way for-profit publication of purportedly scholarly

content in a deceptive or fraudulent way without any appropriate review
mechanism with regard to quality assurance”
● Predatory Journals take advantage of authors by asking them to publish for a fee
without providing peer-review or editing services
● Exist solely for profit
● The focus of predatory or fake journals is to mirror real journals sufficiently so as
to confuse and attract young and inexperienced researchers to submit their
manuscripts
● Hijacked journals are duplicate or fake websites of legitimate ones utilizing the
title, ISSN and other information of the reputable journal. They are often created
by a malicious third party for the purpose of fraudulently offering academicians
the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee.
● Characteristics of a predatory journal:
○ Attractive names that mimic high ranking legitimate journals
 ○ No website or website with no clarity
○ Unprofessional website layout
○ Guaranteed acceptance of manuscript upon submission
○ Invite submission from unrelated disciplines, beyond the stated scope of
journal
○ No editorial board
○ Articles published are of varied lengths
○ Description of manuscript handling process is lacking
○ No retraction policy
○ Do not follow COPE or WAME guidelines
○ Hidden charges
○ Failure to mention copyright
○ Contact email address is non-journal affiliated
○ Usage of fake metrics (GIF, SJIF, IC…)
○ False claims
○ Editorial members without credentials
● How to find predatory journals and publishers?
○ Pay and Publish schemes
○ No peer review process
○ Article processing charges
○ Not listed in Directory of open access journals (DOAJ)
○ Not listed in Ulrich’s periodicals directory
○ Not listed in major indexes
○ Publisher not a member of Open access scholarly publishers association
(OASPA)
○ Listed in Beall’s list or Cabells’ predatory reports
● Role of academic community in fight against predatory publication: Researcher
○ Check whether journal is listed in DOAJ
○ Check whether publisher is a member of OASPA
○ Make sure journal is not listed in Cabells’ predatory reports
○ Consult research supervisor for guidance
○ Check whether listed in Ulrich’s periodicals directory
○ Follow updated UGC-CARE listed journals (Group I and Group II)
○ Use journal selectors
○ “Think-Check-Submit”
○ Blacklist: Bealls’ blog, Cabell’s International
○ White list: DOAJ, OASPA, COPE, Publons
○ Journal selection: Elsevier journal finder, Springer journal suggester,
JANE (Journal author name estimator)….
○ UGC has established “Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics”
(CARE) for creation and maintenance of “Reference List of Quality
Journals”. CARE members include Statutory Councils/ Academies/
Government bodies and others like the Association of Indian Universities.
○ The following are the reasons for the establishment of the CARE List:
■ To promote quality research, academic integrity, and publication
■ To prevent publications in dubious/predatory/sub-standard
journals
■ To maintain the Reference UGC CARE List of Quality Journals
■ To develop a methodology and approach for good quality journal
identification
○ UGC-Care has divided whole list of journals into four main groups which
are explained here:
■ Group A: Research Journals from all disciplines which are indexed
in Scopus (Source List) or Web of Science
■ Group B: UGC Care List of Journals from the previous list which is
qualified as per the analysis protocols
■ Group C: Recommended journals by UGC-CARE Council members
from all disciplines which are qualified as per the analysis protocols
■ Group D: Journals submitted by UGC-CARE Universities for all
disciplines and languages which are qualified as per the analysis
protocols
■ The UGC-CARE List now has only TWO groups, instead of the
 original FOUR groups to simplify the search
○ How to Check UGC Approved Journal?
■ Step 1: Visit the official website of UGC CARE
■ Step 2: Register yourself by submitting the required details and
create a password carefully
■ Step 3: Log in to the website by using your email id and password
■ Step 4: Now, you can search for the journals that are categorized in
Group I & II
3.8 iThenticate software for plagiarism detection (turnitin)

● Create account (Sign Up: First name, last name, email, country, time zone,
captcha, otp: mail)
● Login using username and password (Top right corner)
● Main navigation bar: Folders, Settings, Account Info
○ Folders: Main area of iThenticate; upload, manage and view documents
○ Settings: Contains configuration options for the iThenticate interface
○ Account Info: User profile and account usage; Manage your account
● Detailed description in Module 4
 Research and Publication Ethics
Module 4: Open access publishing and Publication misconduct
Basic details

Module 4 Open Access Publishing, Publication Misconduct,

Software tools

Teaching hours (Practical hours) 08 (4+2+2)

Module 4: Overview of content

Open Access Publishing

1. Open access publications and initiatives
2. SHERPN/RoMEO online resource to check publisher copyright & self-archiving
policies
3. Software tool to identify predatory publications developed by SPPU
4. Journal finder / journal suggestion tools viz.JANE, Elsevier Journal Finder, Springer
Journal Suggester, etc.
Publication Misconduct: Group discussions, and Software tools
Group Discussions:
1. Subject specific ethical issues, FFP, Authorship
2. Conflicts of interest
3. Complaints and appeals: Examples and fraud from India and abroad
Software tools:
1. Use of plagiarism software like Turnitin, Urkund and other open source software tools

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

4.1 Open access publications and initiatives

● Accessibility to research information is paramount for smooth and effective

conduct of research
● Hence, access to publications in peer reviewed journals plays an important role
● Limitations in accessing research output:
○ High number of peer reviewed journals: A library obviously cannot gain
access to all available journals
○ High subscription fee
○ Limited library budget
● Open access refers to the practice of making peer-reviewed scholarly research
and literature freely available online to anyone interested in reading it
● Open access is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research
outputs are distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers; barriers to
copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for
copyright.
● Types of open access (OA) publishing
○ Open Access Journals (OAJ)
○ Open Access Repositories (OAR): An open-access repository or open
archive is a digital platform that holds research output and provides free,
immediate and permanent access to research results for anyone to use,
download and distribute
● Basic characteristics of OA publishing:
○ Free availability
○ Digital in nature
○ Mostly free for publishing, sometimes may avail processing fees
○ Free from copyright and licensing restrictions
○ Research oriented
○ Have editorial board and peer review process
● Open access has two different versions:
○ Gratis: Making research available for others to read without having to pay
 for it, but does not grant the user the right to make copies, distribute, or
modify the work in any way beyond fair use (free of charge)
○ Libre: Libre open access is gratis, meaning the research is available free of
charge, but it goes further by granting users additional rights, usually via a
Creative Commons license, so that people are free to reuse and remix the
research. (free of charge and free of use)
● Open Access Strategies
○ Open access journals (Gold road): Gold open access articles are published
in a journal that is open access, which means the journal will handle
hosting and distributing the journal article in a free and open manner,
without any fee or subscription charge; may involve charge for publishing
○ Self archiving (Green road): Authors self-archive their articles by sharing
them on their own website, or more preferably, in their institution's
Institutional Repository or in some other public archive by themself or
their representatives or right holders depending upon the policy of the
publisher where work is published
● Routes of Open Access
○ Green open Access (Self archiving): Authors publish in scholarly, peer
reviewed journals of their choice; During the copyright transfer process,
they secure rights to deposit a version of their article in an open access
repository or post on a personal website. Works for both pre-prints and
post-prints
○ Gold open access: Authors publish directly in peer-reviewed open access
journals; works only for postprints; List available in DOAJ; Criteria to be
considered open access (BOAI): have editorial board, peer review process,
research oriented. Works only for post prints
○ Hybrid open access: Mixture of open and closed access articles. Partially
funded by subscriptions; open access for only those articles for which
authors have paid publication fee
○ Bronze open access: Articles free to read on publisher page, but lack
clearly identifiable license; freely available journal article that has no open
 license
○ Diamond/ Platinum open access: Journals which publish open access
without charging authors article processing charges; require funding from
external sources
● Selection criteria for inclusion in DOAJ
○ Subject: Scientific and Scholarly
○ Type: Periodicals that publish research or review papers in full text
○ Acceptable sources: Academic, Government, Commercial, Non-profit
○ Level: Primarily researchers
○ Content: Mainly research papers in full text
○ All languages
● Open access movement emerged globally so as to increase accessibility to
research output
○ Started in 1991: Paul Ginsparg
○ Objective: Output of public funded research should be made available to
the public at large without any barrier such as cost, access and copyright
obligations
○ Major initiatives: Budapest Open Access Initiative (2001), Bethesda
Statement on Open Access Publishing (April 2003), Berlin Declaration on
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (October
2003)

Year Initiative

1991 Started by Paul Ginsparg (arXiv repository: free distribution

service)

1993 Project MUSE: Online database of peer reviewed journals

● Open access movement in India

● How to choose publications?
4.2 SHERPA/RoMEO online resource to check publisher copyright &
self-archiving policies

● Sherpa (Securing a hybrid environment for research preservation and access)

Romeo is an online resource that aggregates and analyses publisher open access
policies from around the world and provides summaries of publisher copyright
and open access archiving policies on a journal-by-journal basis
● Upgradation via community contributions
● RoMEO’s (Rights MEtadata for Open archiving) own database covers around
22000 journals
● Aim is to establish institutional repositories and open access archiving
● Basically lists copyright and publishing policies thus helping authors in making
key decisions with respect to publication
● Gives publication information such as title, ISSNs, URL, Publishers
● Gives information regarding publisher policy such as OA fee, OA publishing,
Embargo, Licence, Copyright owner, Location and so on for Published, Accepted
and Submitted versions
● If an academic author wants to put their research articles online, they are faced
with an increasingly complex situation. Some publishers prohibit authors from
using their own articles. Others allow it, but only under certain conditions.
RoMEo helps to clarify the situation. RoMEO contains publishers’ general
policies on self-archiving of journal articles and certain conference series. It
provides information regarding what version of an article can be deposited, and
under what conditions?, and so on.

4.3 Software tool to identify predatory publications developed by SPPU

● Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication
without performing necessary quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or
ethical approval.
● Think Check Submit campaign
● A predatory journal is an opportunistic publishing venue that exploits the
academic need to publish but offers little reward for those using their services.
● Deceptive publishing: Write only for the purpose of publishing
● Motivation: Publish or Perish, Ease of launching online journals
● Why is it bad?
○ Creates confusion
○ Promotes shoddy scholarship
○ Wastes resources
● Definition: Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize
self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or
misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a
lack of transparency, and/ or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation
practices
● Characteristics
○ Money making is the primary goal
○ Do not care about quality of work being published
○ Weak peer review process
○ Make false claims and promises
○ Fail to follow accepted standards and best practices
○ Engage in unethical practices
○ Too much campaigning
○ Appointing false academicians to the editorial board
○ Copying or mimicking names of popular journals
○ Non existent Impact factors
● Eriksson and Helgesson’s 25 features of predatory journals:
○ Not a member of professional body committed to best practices
○ Not indexed
○ False claims
○ Unfamiliar to most
○ Existing papers are of poor quality
 ○ Lot of errors in published papers
○ Website does not look professional
○ Lack of credible information in website such as editorial board, location
and so on
○ Publishing schedule is not clearly stated
○ Mimics or copies popular journals
○ Misleading Imoact factor
○ Non-academic advertisements in website
○ High volume publishing in a very short span of time
○ Articles out of scope
○ Poor email etiquette; contradictory claims
○ Lack of strong peer review process
○ No copyright agreement description
● Tips to identify predatory journals
○ Low h-indices
○ Invitations from conferences
○ Too wide a scope (too many fields)
○ Relatively unknown speakers
● Software tools to identify predatory publications developed by SPPU
○ Set guidelines for considering a journal to be a good one: Publishing for at
least 5 years, genuine website, reputed academicians, associated with
reputed professional bodies, and so on
○ Papers published in private in-house journals, proceedings of workshops,
seminars, refresher/ orientation courses should not be considered as
research publication
○ Universities should develop a comprehensive department wise list of
quality journals and reputed publications in each subject to be used as
mark of standard in research processes
○ Mere ISSN not sufficient for qualifying as a peer-reviewed journal
○ Record of citations in other reputed journals
○ Do not rely on just one metrics in ascertaining quality of a journal
 ○ Due recognition to languages other than English should be given, all the
while following a transparent and quality conscious process
○ Faculty wise expert list should be developed at university level with utmost
care and due diligence
○ List of quality journals should be displayed in university website, and
should be reviewed and updated every year; utmost care should be taken
before including a journal in the university list, keeping in mind the rise of
fake and counterfeit journals
○ Beall’s list can be referred
○ RPE and guidelines should be widely circulated, and undertaking should
be taken from research guides and scholars for adherence to the same
○ Research articles, Thesis and such research works should go through
Departmental Research Committee consisting of internal and external
experts duly approved by Vice-Chancellor
○ Anti-plagiarism tools to be made mandatory
○ Awareness programs regarding predatory publishing at university level
○ Quality of work to be judged by external experts anonymously
○ Universities should bring in external peer review system to critically
evaluate its research output
○ Necessary guidelines and comprehensive department wise lists of Journals
in each subject should be published in University Annual report and
displayed prominently on University website
○ UGC has set up CARE to promote ethics in research
○ Publications in predatory journals will be assessed during a university’s
accreditation process
● Consequences of publishing in predatory journals
○ Damage to reputation
○ Research based on works from predatory journals may lead to wrong
conclusions
○ Lack of quality control
○ Lack of reproducibility
 ○ Work could disappear/ Loss of information: Predatory journals do not
care to set up an IT infrastructure to ensure information preservation, as
cost effectiveness and money making is the sole purpose
○ Work will be hard to find
○ Concealed conflict of interests: Eg: Wakefield case study
● Cabell’s Predatory reports is the only searchable database that identifies
deceptive and fraudulent journals using 74 weighted behavioral indicators
● Journalytics database is an complete source for Journal info, evaluation metrics,
and submission details
● Journal evaluation metrics: Audience, Relevance, Quality, Peer review, Policies,
Publication practices
● How to avoid predatory publishers?
○ Use Cabell’s predatory reports and Journalytics
○ APA questionnaire: Informal email tone, Unprofessional website
○ PsycINFO journal coverage list

4.4 Journal finder/ journal suggestion tools: JANE, Elsevier Journal Finder,
Springer Journal Suggester, etc.

Journal finder tools

● Journal finder tools helps a researcher in locating the best suited journal for
publishing his/ her research work
● Journal finder identifies highly ranked journals based on some standard metrics
such as Scopus or Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
● How to select best suited journal for my article?
○ Make a List of the Journals Available: Consulting your peers,
searching through online listings, and checking with professional
associations
○ Determine the Impact of the Journal: Impact Factor, Journal Rank,
Article Influence, and h-Index are used to determine the impact of the
journal
 ○ Make Sure the Journal Scope and Policies match your Needs:
Helps in anticipating any situations that may emerge during the
submission and peer review process
○ Check the Journal Requirements and Distribution: Most journals
have a certain style for the article. The article must be consistent with the
requirements of the journal.
○ Collect Information about the Journal’s Peer Review Process:
Stature of reviewers, objectivity, and timelines, should be gleaned from a
variety of sources. Actual values or estimates of rejection rates should be
obtained.
○ Check the “Instructions for Authors” thoroughly: Certain
additional information for the authors that one must keep in mind before
submitting the manuscript: Page limit, Conflict of interest, Archiving
policies, Copyright policies, Author rights, and so on
● JANE (Journal/ Author name estimator)
○ Objectives:
■ Assisting authors in right journal selection
■ Assiting authors in finding relevant articles to cite
■ Assisting editors in finding right reviewers
○ How?
■ Just enter the title and/or abstract of the paper in the box, and click
on 'Find journals', 'Find authors' or 'Find Articles'. Jane will then
compare your document to millions of documents in PubMed to
find the best matching journals, authors or articles
■ Instead of using a title or abstract, you can also search using a
keyword search, similar to popular web search engines
■ Find journals: Upon search, JANE gives out a list of journals sorted
with decreasing level of confidence and article influence. List of
similar articles can also be seen with similarity index.
■ Article influence measures how often articles in the journal are
cited within the first 5 years of its publication
 ■ Types of journal measures
○ JANE relies on the data in PubMed, which can contain papers from
predatory journals, and therefore these journals can appear in JANE's
results. To help identify high-quality journals, JANE now tags journals
that are currently indexed in MEDLINE, and open access journals
approved by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
○ Updated on a monthly basis
○ Includes papers published in last 10 years
○ Database works by searching gor 50 articles most similar to the given
input. For each of these articles, similarity score is calculated. The
similarity scores of all the articles belonging to a certain journal or author
are summed to calculate the confidence score for the journal or the author.
○ Information sent to JANE server is not stored
● Elsevier Journal finder
○ EJF uses paper title, abstract, keywords, field of research in helping
researchers to select appropriate journals
○ Smart search can be done by refining the search for: Publication type
(Gold OA, Subscription), Journal Impact (Cite score, Impact factor,
0:10+), Review and publication time (Time to 1st decision, Time to
publication)
○ Powered by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine
● Springer Journal Suggester
○ Uses semantic technology to help researchers in selecting appropriate
journals out of 2500 springer and BioMed central journals
○ Researchers can specify acceptance rate, impact factor threshold,
maximum time to first decision, indexing services so as to narrow down
the search
● Wiley Journal Suggester
● Wiley Journal finder
● SJFInder
 ● JournalGuide
● Think Check Submit

4.5 Subject specific ethical issues: Engineering ethics

● Click on this link to read about Engineering ethics in detail

● Article 1: Social Responsibility to Uphold Ethical Values of the Society:
○ Public safety: Safety, health and welfare of public
○ Compliance with social order: Laws of land, local customs
○ Impartiality and fairness: Irrespective of caste, color, nationality
○ Environment protection and improvement
● Article 2: Responsibility to maintain high standards of professional quality:
○ Development of technical and managerial skills
○ Undertake assignment where professionally competent: Only if skilled
○ Performance responsibility
○ Proper verification of documents and production processes
● Article 3: Obligation to Maintain High Standard of Personal Behaviour in a
Responsible Manner
○ Honesty and integrity in professional dealing
○ Compensation for services rendered
○ Professional opinion
○ Professional relationship with the employer
○ Information communication with employers
○ Mutual obligation and trust
○ Self promotion: Do not indulge
○ Employers’ business secrets
○ Personal conflict: Conflict of interest
4.6 Complaints and appeals: examples and fraud from India and abroad

● Scientific plaigiarism in India

● Frauds in Indian scientific research
● Kerala university faculty in research fraud row
● Disentangling the epidemic of scientific misconduct
4.7 Software tools

● Turnitin
○ Paid web based software to check plagiarism
○ Create turnitin account and login
○ Create class using Add class button and filling in necessary details like
class name, subject, student level and so on
○ Go inside the class, and create assignment using Add assignment button
by filling in necessary details
○ Go to action:view button
○ Select file and submit by filling in necessary details
■ Single file upload
■ Multiple file upload
■ Cut and paste upload
■ Zip upload
○ Keep on refreshing until you get similarity index
■ Color coded matching
■ Use document viewer in the top left corner to download pdf version
of similarity report
○ User Manual
○ Key determinants in similarity checking
■ Speed of the internet
■ Online availability of databases
■ Digitization
■ Filtering tools used
 ■ Documents in regional languages
■ Similarity % varies from tool to tool
● Ouriginal
● Difference between turnitin and original
 Research and Publication Ethics
Module 5: Databases and Research metrics
Basic details

Module 5 Databases and Research metrics

Teaching hours (Practical hours) 07 (4+3)

Module 5: Overview of content

Databases
1. Indexing databases
2. Citation databases: Web of Science, Scopus….
Research Metrics
1. Impact factor of journal as per journal citation report, SNIP, SJR, IPP, Cite Score
2. Metrics: h-index, g-index, i-10index, altmetrics

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

Indexing https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/index-t
ypes-for-academic-journal/
https://libguides.fau.edu/c.php?g=325509&
p=2182113
https://www.atlantis-press.com/industry-aff
iliations/indexing-databases
http://olddrji.lbp.world/aboutindexing.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4800951/pdf/IJOrtho-50-115.pdf
https://www.mdpi.com/ethics#4
5.1 Indexing databases

● Indexing is the process of creating indexes for record collections. Having indexes allows
researchers to more quickly find records for specific individuals; without them,
researchers might have to look through hundreds or thousands of records to locate an
individual record.
● It also represents a number referring to a list of terms, definitions, topics etc. arranged in
alphabetical order in order to efficiently guide the readers to the desired information
within the content. Indexing facilitates the organization of literature in such a manner that
makes the document of interest easily identifiable by the readers.
● How indexing is done?: The indexer usually receives a set of page proofs for the journal
at the same stage when the document is undergoing final proofreading. The indexer
requires the page proofs, to make a list of headings and subheadings (term to appear in
the index) and the location of each pertinent reference. After completion of the rough
index, it is edited for structure, clarity and consistency, formatted to specifications,
proofread and submitted to the client as final soft copy.The time period for indexing
depends on the length of manuscript. The more the content of the manuscript, the more
time it will take to be indexed.
● Why Indexing?
○ The function of an index is to give users systematic and effective shortcuts to the
information they need
○ Indexes are needed for any information collection, except the very smallest
● Benefits of Indexing
○ Researchers gain access to the most recent literature, even if it has not yet been
indexed by other sources
○ Automatic set-up of holdings means zero administration
○ Faster results with fewer headaches through automatic e-journal results included
with every database search
○ Keeps users on top of their areas of interest with a single place to manage Journal
Alerts and Search Alerts
○ Organized way
 ● Challenges in Indexing
○ Scope of coverage depends on a library or institution's subscription; their terms
may not provide complete coverage or access to full text articles
○ Database access usually requires a subscription or an affiliation to an institution;
they are not free
○ A simple keyword search tends to yield too many results or items that may not be
relevant to your topic
○ Usually gives fewer results than a keyword search
○ Sometimes using truncation or limiters can disable other search features,
depending on the database

5.2 Citation databases: Web of Science, Scopus….

Nowadays enhancing credibility based on our own research solely depends on to what extent our
research reaches a wider audience. The era of digitization and OA has enhanced its value.

Concept of Citation

● A formal reference to a published or unpublished source that you consulted and obtained
information from while writing your research paper
● Citation means when one paper explicitly refers to another paper with reference given in
bibliography
● Major performance indicator: Reflects Impact and quality of research
● Symbolizes conceptual association of scientific ideas
● Citation: Author’s name, date of publication, title of the work being cited, title of the
journal, vol and issue numbers, page numbers, DOI

Importance of Citation

● Authors use citation to give proper credit to source work

● Used as Performance indicator in evaluating performance of research groups,
 departments and institutions
● Avoids Plagiarism
● Citation reflects the amount of work author has done towards his/ her work
● Helps in locating quality papers for upcoming researchers

Self Citation

● Self citation is when author cites his earlier research works in his forthcoming paper
𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓−𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠 (𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜−𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑)
● Self-citation rate in % (author) = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
* 100

Citation Databases

● Citation databases are collections of referenced papers/ articles/ books and other material
entered into an online system (database) in a structured and consistent way
● Scopus:
○ Scopus-Elsevier is a source-neutral abstract and citation database which was
launched in 2004
○ Content: Health Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences
○ Peer reviewed journals, book series, trade publications
○ All journals covered in Scopus database are reviewed each year to ensure high
quality standards
○ Scopus gives 4 types of quality measure: h-index, CiteScore, SJR (SCImago
Journal rank), SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper)
● Web of Science (WoS):
○ Global citation database; World’s first citation index
○ Dr Eugene Garfield
○ Powerful research engine connecting academics, government and millions of
researchers
○ WoS provides access to 3 major databases: Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
○ WoS core collection consists of 4 online databases: SCIE (Science citation index
expanded), SSCI (Social sciences citation index), AHCI (Arts & Humanities
citation index), ESCI (Emerging sources citation index)
 ○ Researchers can use Master Journal List, a free tool which helps in navigating all
titles currently covered in WoS; also helps librarians to keep track of publication
landscape
● Google Scholar:
○ Google scholar citations is free of charge
○ Provides i/f about citations of authors by tracking online journals, book chapters,
conference papers, web pages and so on
○ Easy to set up if one has an existing google account
○ Tracks academic articles, thesis, book titles towards citation metrics
○ Helps in locating relevant data for researchers in a scientific way via advanced
search option
○ Provides in-depth details pertaining to a document
○ Individual scholar can also set up his/ her own Google scholar profile
○ Limitation: Fails to recognize and exclude predatory sources
● Citeseer
○ The first digital library and search engine to provide an autonomous citation
indexing system which indexes academic literature in electronic format

Comparison of citation databases

Characteristics Scopus WoS Google Scholar

Date of official 2004 2004 2004

inauguration

Developer/ Owner Elsevier (Netherlands) Thomson Scientific and Google Inc., (USA)
Health Care Corporation
(USA)

No. of Journals 21000 8700 No data

Languages English + 30 English + 45 English plus any language

Focus (Field) Physical Sciences, Health Science, Technology, Biology, Engineering,

Sciences, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts & Social Sciences, Arts &
Social Sciences Humanities Humanities, Chemistry,
Business, Administration,
Finance & Economics
 Period covered 1966 - present 1900 - present Theoretically covers all
which is available
electronically

Content: Abstract (+) (+) (+)

Authors (+) (+) (+)

Citations (+) (+) (+)

Patents (+) (+) (-)

Updating 1- 2 times weekly Weekly Monthly

Databases covered Medline, Embase, SCIE, SSCI, AHCI, ESCI PubMed, OCLC first
Geobase, Biobase search

5.3 Research Metrics

Journal level Metrics

Impact Factor (IF)

● Metric for assessing journal performance/ quality

● Initially designed in 1960 to assist librarians in collection management
● Released annually based on WoS Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
● Journals only in SCIE and SSCI can have IF
● Impact Factor is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the
total number of articles published in the two previous years. An Impact Factor of 1.0
means that, on average, the articles published one or two year ago have been cited one
time.
● Average no. of citations received by articles in a journal within a 2 year window
● Impact Factor of 2021 = A/B
○ A = No. of citations received in one year in relation to content published in
journal during previous 2 years (say 2019 and 2020)
○ B= Total no. of articles and reviews published within the previous 2 years (say
 2019 and 2020)
○ Does not include editorials and letters to the editor

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

● SNIP measures citations received relative to citations expected for the subject field
● Makes cross-discipline comparisons easier between journals
● Published twice a year, and looks at a 3 year period
● SNIP is calculated as the number of citations given in the present year to publications in
the past three years divided by the total number of publications in the past three years.
● Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures contextual citation impact by
weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. The impact of
a single citation is given higher value in subject areas where citations are less likely, and
vice versa.
● Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a sophisticated metric that intrinsically
accounts for field-specific differences in citation practices. It does so by comparing each
journal's citations per publication with the citation potential of its field, defined as the set
of publications citing that journal.
● Calculated value of SNIP = RIP (Raw Impact per paper) = A/B
○ A = Journal citation count per paper
○ B = Citation potential in the field

SJR (SCImago Journal rank)

● The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of
scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and
the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations come from
● It is also a prestige metric based on the idea that "all citations are not created equal." With
SJR, the subject field, quality and reputation of the journal has a direct effect on the value
of a citation
● A journal's SJR indicator is a numeric value representing the average number of weighted
citations received during a selected year per document published in that journal during
 the previous three years, as indexed by Scopus. Higher SJR indicator values are meant to
indicate greater journal prestige.
● If scientific impact is considered related to the number of endorsements in the form of
citations a journal receives, then prestige can be understood as a combination of the
number of endorsements and the prestige or importance of the journals issuing them. The
SJR indicator assigns different values to citations depending on the importance of the
journals where they come from. This way, citations coming from highly important
journals will be more valuable and hence will provide more prestige to the journals
receiving them. The calculation of the SJR indicator is similar to the Eigenfactor score,
with the former being based on the Scopus database and the latter on the Web of Science
database. There are some differences although.
● The SJR indicator computation is carried out using an iterative algorithm that distributes
prestige values among the journals until a steady-state solution is reached. The SJR
algorithm begins by setting an identical amount of prestige to each journal, then using an
iterative procedure, this prestige is redistributed in a process where journals transfer their
achieved prestige to each other through citations. The process ends up when the
difference between journal prestige values in consecutive iterations do not reach a
minimum threshold value any more. The process is developed in two phases, (a) the
computation of Prestige SJR (PSJR) for each journal: a size-dependent measure that
reflects the whole journal prestige, and (b) the normalization of this measure to achieve a
size-independent measure of prestige, the SJR indicator
● SJR is calculated as:
○ SJR of current year = A/B, where
○ A = Average no. of weighted citations in a given year
○ B = No. of articles published in the previous 3 years

IPP (Impact per publication)

● IPP - Impact Per Publication: Also known as RIP (raw impact per publication), the IPP is
used to calculate SNIP. It is almost same as SNIP. IPP is number of current-year citations
to papers from the previous 3 years, divided by the total number of papers in those 3
previous years.
Cite Score

● A relatively new metric that helps researchers in tracking journal performance and make
decisions
● CiteScore is the number of citations received by a journal in one year to documents
published in the three previous years, divided by the number of documents indexed in
Scopus published in those same three years
● Cite Score value = A/B, Where
○ A = Citations received by a journal in one year to documents published in the
three previous years
○ B = Number of documents indexed in Scopus published in those same three years

Author-level Metrics

h-index

● Introduced by Jorge Hirsch in 2005; also known as Hirsch index or Hirsch number
● The h-index is a number intended to represent both the productivity and the impact of a
particular scientist or scholar, or a group of scientists or scholars (such as a departmental
or research group).
● The h-index is calculated by counting the number of publications for which an author has
been cited by other authors at least that same number of times.
● For instance, an h-index of 17 means that the scientist has published at least 17 papers
that have each been cited at least 17 times. If the scientist's 18th most cited publication
was cited only 10 times, the h-index would remain at 17. If the scientist's 18th most cited
publication was cited 18 or more times, the h-index would rise to 18.
● h-index = the number of publications (h) with a citation number greater than or equal to
h; For example, 15 publications cited 15 times or more, is a h-index of 15.
● Part of the purpose of the h-index is to eliminate outlier publications that might give a
skewed picture of a scientist's impact. For instance, if a scientist published one paper
many years ago that was cited 9,374 times, but has since only published papers that have
been cited 2 or 3 times each, a straight citation count for that scientist could make it seem
 that his or her long-term career work was very significant. The h-index, however, would
be much lower, signifying that the scientist's overall body of work was not necessarily as
significant.

g-index

● Suggested by Leo Egghe in 2006

● The index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given
researcher's publications, such that given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of
the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the unique largest number such
that the top g articles received together at least g squared citations. Hence, a g-index of 10
indicates that the top 10 publications of an author have been cited at least 100 times
● A g-index of 20 means that an academic has published at least 20 articles that combined
have received at least 400 (20 squared) citations. However, unlike the h-index these
citations could be generated by only a small number of articles.
● An example of two authors that both published 10 papers, both authors have a h-index of
6. However, Author 1 have a g-index of 10 while Author 2 have a g-index of 7.
i-10 index

● Used only in Google Scholar

● Number of publications with at the least 10 citations

Article level metrics

Altmetrics

● In scholarly and scientific publishing, altmetrics are proposed as an alternative or

complement to more traditional citation impact metrics, such as impact factor and
h-index
● Used to track and analyze online activity around scholarly outputs; encapsulates multiple
digital indicators related to a scholarly work
● Measure of attention a research output gets from various sources
● It is a quantitative measure of the attention a specific article has received in public policy
documents, wikipedia references, mainstream news, social networks, blogs and even
social media platforms
● The three main factors used to calculate AAS (Altmetric Attention Score) are:
○ Volume: Score rises as more people mention it; only 1 mention per source is
counted
○ Sources: Each source has a weightage, for example, a newspaper article
contributes more than a blog post, which contributes more than a tweet
○ Authors
○ The AAS represents a weighted approximation of all the attention that has been
picked up by a research output. The score is derived from an automated
algorithm, and represents a weighted count of the amount of attention a research
output has picked up.
○ Weightage detail
 Altmetric donut

The