0% found this document useful (0 votes)
42 views88 pages

Unit 3

Uploaded by

Arun Trent
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
42 views88 pages

Unit 3

Uploaded by

Arun Trent
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 88

Module-3

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND


MISCONDUCTS

Ethics: definition; Ethics with respect to science and research - intellectual honesty
and research integrity; Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism
(FFP); Redundant publications: duplicate and overlapping publications, salami slicing;
Selective reporting and misrepresentation of data; Publication ethics: introduction and
importance; Standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME; Conflicts of
interest. Publication misconduct: definition, concept, unethical behaviour; Violation of
publication ethics, authorship and contributor ship; Identification, complaints and
appeals; Predatory publisher and journals.
Ethics
• Everybody in their everyday life attempts to behave from certain
perspectives laid out moral standards. This philosophical idea has various
applications in an individual's reality.
• Morals is concerned with the meaning of good and bad. It clarifies ways of
thinking that teach us the proper behaviour in a given circumstance, which
has forever involved dispute between savants.
• Each thinker has characterized it as indicated by their own emotional
understanding. While epistemology is worried about what we should accept
and how we should reason.
• Ethics is worried about what we should do, how we should live, and how
we should coordinate our networks. Unfortunately, it shocks numerous
new truth seekers that can reason about things like this. Strictly propelled
sees about ethical quality frequently take right and wrong to be only a
question of what is instructed by a heavenly being.
• Moral Relativism, maybe the most prominent attitude among individuals
who have dismissed confidence, essentially substitutes the orders of society
for the orders of God.
• Considering ethical quality as far as whose orders are definitive rules out
level headed investigation into how we should live, how we should treat
others, or how we should structure our networks.
• Reasoning, then again, treats in a serious way the chance of objective
request into these issues.
• The long furthermore, troublesome history of science ought to provide us
with some modest acknowledgment of how troublesome and
disappointing cautious request and examination can be.
• The way of thinking of science, for example, is worried about magical
issues about what science is, yet in addition with epistemological inquiries
concerning how we can know logical insights.
• The way of thinking of affection is also worried about magical inquiries
concerning what love is. However, it additionally worried about inquiries
regarding the worth of adoration that are more moral in character.
Ethics Defined
❖ A discipline dealing with what is proper course of action for
man (Aristotle, cit in Mckeon,1941)
❖ A branch of philosophy that looks at what is good and what
is bad
❖ A system of obligation that we have towards others
❖ Also known as moral philosophy, involves, systematising,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong
behaviour (www.iep.utm.edu/ethics)
❖ A study of principles guiding the good of the individual within
the context of social interactions and the community
Type of Ethics - Defined
Meta Ethics: “is a branch of analytic
philosophy that explores the status,
foundations, and scope of moral values,
properties, and words” Source:
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k
/docs/Meta-ethics.html

Normative Ethics: addresses the


ETHICS AS A question of ‘What ought to be done?’
THEORETICAL Normative Ethical theorists (Socrates, Kant,
ENTERPRISE Stuart, Bentham) seek to provide action
guides and codes.

Applied Ethics: domain specific ethics


(Business, biomedical; APA, engineering,
etc.)
Ethics Evolution

Kant (1724-1804)
Aristotle
(384-322 Siddhartha rightness of an action
BC) – Socrates Gautama is determined by the
proposed a (469-399) (563-480 BC) character of the
theory of principle that a
virtue person chooses to act
upon
Ethics Evolution

Bentham (1781)
–Principle of utility –
Martin Luther King Fanon (1925-1961)
diapproves or
Mahatma Ghandi African
approves of every Nelson Mandela
(1869 – 1948) philosophy,
action according to (1918-2013) humaneness
tendency to augment
or diminish happiness
What is Research Ethics?
• Ethics are the set of rules that govern our expectations of our own and
others’ behavior.
• Research ethics are the set of ethical guidelines that guides us on how
scientific research should be conducted and disseminated.
• Research ethics govern the standards of conduct for scientific researchers
.
• It is the guideline for responsibly conducting the research.
• Research that implicates human subjects or contributors rears distinctive
and multifaceted ethical, legitimate, communal and administrative
concerns.
• Research ethics is unambiguously concerned in the examination of ethical
issues that are upraised when individuals are involved as participants in
the study.
• Research ethics committee/Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews
whether the research is ethical enough or not to protect the rights, dignity
and welfare of the respondents.
What is ethics? What is Research?

What exactly is
research Ethics?
Research Ethics

“Greek ethos ‘character’ is the systematic


study of value concepts—good, bad,
right, wrong and the general principles
that justify applying these concepts”.

Joan E. Sieber
Planning Ethically Responsible Research, p. 3
Research Ethics

“Ethics is the disciplined study or


morality….and morality asks the
question…what should one’s
behavior be”.

Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 1
Research Ethics

Two types of ethical decision-making


1. Deductive or principle based
reasoning
2. Inductive or case based reasoning

Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 1
Research Ethics

1. Deductive or principle based


reasoning
– Start with an ethical theory
– Continue with a specific principle
– Develop rules
– Make judgments
Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 1
Research Ethics

1. Deductive Reasoning

Ethical Theory Principle Rules Judgment

Peace Violence War

Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 2
Research Ethics

2. Inductive or Case Based Reasoning


❖ Decisions we have made – precedent
❖ Look back at those decisions and combine them
in order to make a judgment
❖ Judgments reflect back on rules
❖ Rules reflect on our principles
❖ Principles reflect back to the ethical theory
Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 2
Research Ethics

2. Inductive or Case Based Reasoning


❖ Decisions we have made – avoid war and move
to Canada (U.S. declares war on Canada)
❖ Judgment – defend yourself
❖ Rule – join Army (protect children)
❖ Principles – family important
❖ Ethical theory
Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision making, 2001, p. 2
Research Ethics
Deductive reasoning Case Based Reasoning
No WAR! Fight WAR!
Conflict

Conflict Between Decisions


❖ When there is an argument
❖ Go back to the original principles – ask
yourself “What were my original
principles?”
❖ Original principles are in conflict or
“incoherent”
Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 3
Research Ethics
Conflict Between Decisions
❖ There will be conflict
❖ You will use both types of ethical
decision-making to make decisions
❖ When conflict arises…go back to the original
principles and try to create coherence by
dealing with the specific principles
Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making 2001, p. 3
Generalisability of findings: the extent to
which the sample used in the research
project reflects the broader population of
interest

Univesality and
Scientific Rigour (truth is
objectivity (explicit rules
accepted if there is
Key Features and systematic
sufficient evidence to
procedures)
support claims made of Scientific - Research should be
through the research
process. Such claims have
Research designed in a manner that
allows any competent
to withstand the scrutiny of
researcher to conduct a
repeated testing)
similar study and generate
the same findings

Originality of research work: original ideas


backed with appropriate evidence in a clear,
logical and convincing argument that illustrates
critical and analytical thinking.
Research Ethics are:

1. A code of guidelines on how to conduct


scientific research in a morally acceptable way.

2. Principles and standards that help researchers to


uphold the value and standards of knowledge
construction.
Ethical Considerations in the Research
Process
1. Conceptualisation and design of the study
(scientific merit, identify risks and ways to
mitigate the risks)
Ethical
2. When participants are recruited (the process
considerations of informed consent, right to privacy)
come into play at 3. During the intervention or measurement
six stages of procedure to which participants are subjected
(management of risk)
research
4. In the release of results obtained
5. (protection of confidentiality and
anonimity)
6. After the release of results (ensure that
participants and communities involved in
the research benefit)
Objectives of Research Ethics
• Three comprehensive objectives of Research Ethics are –
1. To guard/protect human participants, their dignity, rights
and welfare .
2. To make sure that research is directed in a manner that
assists welfares of persons, groups and/or civilization as a
whole.
3. To inspect particular research events and schemes for their
ethical reliability, considering issues such as the controlling
risk, protection of privacy and the progression of informed
consent.
Principles of Research Ethics

tence
m p e Justice
Co Non-maleficen
Integrity ce
Dignity

Researchers Beneficence Participants

Responsibility Autonomy Confidentiality

Honesty Privacy
Principles of Research Ethics
The general principles of research ethics are:
• Honesty
o Being honest with the beneficiaries and respondents.
o Being honest about the findings and methodology of the research.
o Being honest with other direct and indirect stakeholders.
• Integrity
o Ensuring honesty and sincerity.
o Fulfilling agreements and promises.
o Do not create false expectations or make false promises.
• Objectivity
o Avoiding bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation,
peer review, and other aspects of research.
• Informed consent
o Informed consent means that a person knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently gives consent to participate in a research.
o Informed consent is related to the autonomous right of the individual to
participate in the research.
o Informing the participant about the research objective, their role,
benefits/harms (if any) etc.
Principles of Research Ethics
• The general principles of research ethics are:
• Respect for person/respondent
o Autonomy, which requires that those who are capable of deliberation about
their personal goals should be treated with respect for their capacity for
self-determination; and
o Protection of persons with impaired or diminished autonomy, which requires
that those who are dependent or vulnerable be afforded security against harm
or abuse.
• Beneficence
o Maximize the benefits of the participants. Ethical obligation to maximize
possible benefits and to minimize possible harms to the respondents.
• Non-maleficence/ Protecting the subjects (human)
o Do no harm. Minimize harm/s or risks to the human. Ensure privacy, autonomy
and dignity.
• Responsible publication
o Responsibly publishing to promote and uptake research or knowledge. No
duplicate publication.
• Protecting anonymity
o It means keeping the participant anonymous. It involves not revealing the name,
caste or any other information about the participants that may reveal his/her
identity.
Principles of Research Ethics
• The general principles of research ethics are:
• Confidentiality
▪ Protecting confidential information, personnel records. It includes
information such as:
o Introduction and objective of the research
o Purpose of the discussion
o Procedure of the research
o Anticipated advantages, benefits/harm from the research (if any)
o Use of research
o Their role in research
o Right to refuse or withdraw
o Methods which will be used to protect anonymity and confidentiality of
the participant
o Freedom to not answer any question/withdraw from the research
o Who to contact if the participant needs additional information about
the research.
Principles of Research Ethics
• The general principles of research ethics are:
• Non-discrimination
o Avoid discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, ethnicity or
other factors that are violation of human rights and are not
related to the study.
• Openness
o Be open to sharing results, data and other resources. Also accept
encouraging comments and constructive feedback.
• Carefulness and respect for intellectual property
o Be careful about the possible error and biases.
o Give credit to the intellectual property of others. Always
paraphrase while referring to others article, writing. Never
plagiarize.
• Justice
o The obligation to distribute benefits and burdens fairly, to treat
equals equally, and to give reasons for differential treatment
based on widely accepted criteria for just ways to distribute
benefits and burdens.
Broad Categorization of Research
Ethics
1. MINIMIZING THE RISK OF HARM
2. OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT
3. PROTECTING ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
4. AVOIDING MISLEADING PRACTICES
5. PROVIDING THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
Broad Categorization of Research
Ethics
1. MINIMIZING THE RISK OF HARM
• It is necessary to minimize any sort of harm to the participants.
There are a number of forms of harm that participants can be
exposed to. They are:
o Bodily harm to contributors.
o Psychological agony and embarrassment.
o Social drawback.
o Violation of participant’s confidentiality and privacy.
• In order to minimize the risk of harm, the researcher/data
collector should:
o Obtain informed consent from participants.
o Protecting anonymity and confidentiality of participants.
o Avoiding misleading practices when planning research.
o Providing participants with the right to withdraw.
Broad Categorization of Research
Ethics
2. OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT
• One of the fundamentals of research ethics is the notion of informed
consent.
• Informed consent means that a person knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently gives consent to participate in a research.
Informed consent means that the participants should be well-informed about
the:
o Introduction and objective of the research
o Purpose of the discussion
o Anticipated advantages, benefits/harm from the research (if any)
o Use of research
o Their role in research
o Methods which will be used to protect anonymity and confidentiality of the participant
o Freedom to not answer any question/withdraw from the research
o Who to contact if the participant need additional information about the research
Broad Categorization of Research
Ethics
3. PROTECTING ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of research participants is an
additionally applied constituent of research ethics.
▪ Protecting anonymity: It means keeping the participant anonymous. It
involves not revealing the name, caste or any other information about
the participants that may reveal his/her identity.
▪ Maintaining confidentiality: It refers to ensuring that the information
given by the participant are confidential and not shared with anyone,
except the research team. It is also about keeping the information
secretly from other people.

4. AVOIDING MISLEADING PRACTICES


▪ The researcher should avoid all the deceptive and misleading practices
that might misinform the respondent.
▪ It includes avoiding all the activities like communicating wrong
messages, giving false assurance, giving false information etc.
Broad Categorization of Research
Ethics
5. PROVIDING THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
• Participants have to have the right to withdraw at any point of the research.
• When any respondent decides on to withdraw from the research, they should not
be stressed or forced in any manner to try to discontinue them from withdrawing.
Apart from the above-mentioned ethics, other ethical aspects things that must be
considered while doing research are:
Protection of vulnerable groups of people:
• Vulnerability is one distinctive feature of people incapable to protect their moralities and
wellbeing. Vulnerable groups comprise captive populations (detainees, established, students,
etc.), mentally ill persons, and aged people, children, critically ill or dying, poor, with learning
incapacities, sedated or insensible.
• Their participation in research can be endorsed to their incapability to give an informed
consent and to the need for their further safety and sensitivity from the research/researcher as
they are in a greater risk of being betrayed, exposed or forced to participate.
Skills of the researcher:
• Researchers should have the basic skills and familiarity for the specific study to be carried out
and be conscious of the bounds of personal competence in research.
• Any lack of knowledge in the area under research must be clearly specified.
• Inexperienced researchers should work under qualified supervision that has to be revised by an
ethics commission.
Advantages of Research Ethics
• Research ethics promote the aims of research.
• It increases trust among the researcher and the respondent.
• It is important to adhere to ethical principles in order to protect
the dignity, rights and welfare of research participants.
• Researchers can be held accountable and answerable for their
actions.
• Ethics promote social and moral values.
• Promotes the ambitions of research, such as understanding,
veracity, and dodging of error.
• Ethical standards uphold the values that are vital to cooperative
work, such as belief, answerability, mutual respect, and
impartiality.
• Ethical norms in research also aid to construct public upkeep for
research. People are more likely to trust a research project if they
can trust the worth and reliability of research.
Limitations of Research Ethics
• Possibilities to physical integrity, containing those linked with
experimental drugs and dealings and with other involvements that will be
used in the study (e.g. measures used to observe research participants,
such as blood sampling, X-rays or lumbar punctures).
• Psychological risks: for example, a questionnaire may perhaps signify a
risk if it fears traumatic events or happenings that are especially
traumatic.
• Social, legal and economic risks: for example, if personal information
collected during a study is unintentionally released, participants might
face a threat of judgment and stigmatization.
• Certain tribal or inhabitant groups may possibly suffer from discrimination
or stigmatization, burdens because of research, typically if associates of
those groups are recognized as having a greater-than-usual risk of
devouring a specific disease.
• The research may perhaps have an influence on the prevailing health
system: for example, human and financial capitals dedicated to research
may distract attention from other demanding health care necessities in
the community.
Ensure Ethics at Different Steps of
Research
The following process helps to ensure ethics at different steps of
research:
• Collect the facts and talk over intellectual belongings openly
• Outline the ethical matters
• Detect the affected parties (stakeholders)
• Ascertain the forfeits – Check different forces
• Recognize the responsibilities (principles, rights, justice)
• Contemplate your personality and truthfulness
• Deliberate innovatively about possible actions
• Respect privacy and confidentiality
• Resolve on the appropriate ethical action and be willing to
deal with divergent point of view.
FUNDAMENTALLY Research
Ethics are:
❖ A way of conducting the research enterprise
such that the three fundamental principles of
research (respect, beneficence and justice) are
upheld.
❖ Ethical research must conform with the national
and international accords and prescripts.
Justice: researchers should not Respect
place one group of people at risk
Respect for research participants
solely for the benefit another.
(informed consent)

Respect for sponsors of research


Risks and benefits should
be distributed in an Respect for communities where
equitable manner when participants come from
recruiting participancts
Respect for knowledge and academic
community
PRINCIPLES OF
RESEARCH ETHICS

Benefits must be weighed against potential risk


that a person might have by participating

Research should only be justified if its


Beneficence: the researcher is conduct and result will be of benefit to
responsible for the mental, physical and the participants
social wellbeing of the participant
throughout the participation in the study. How the community will benefit should be
clear from the research protocol
Concerned with Research Ethics:
Reasons
1. Professional Responsibility
2. To avoid reputational damage
3. Research can be harmful to:
– Participants
– To researchers
– To institutions
– To research communities

4. To avoid litigation
– In a scenario where a proposal is classified as Ethics
Category 1 (exempt from Ethics and Biosafety Research
Committee Review) liability and responsibility arising from
decisions based on ethics are shouldered by the FRC and
its members.
Six Fundamental Ethical Principles for
Scientific Research

Attribution of credit
Scientists should not plagiarise the work of other
scientists. They should give credit where credit is due
but not where it is not due.
Six Fundamental Ethical Principles for
Scientific Research

Public responsibility
Scientists should report research in the public media
when the research has an important and direct bearing
on human happiness and when the research has been
sufficiently validated by scientific peers.
Ethical considerations for scientific
conduct

▪ All behaviors involved in the research process, such as


developing a theory, collecting data, and testing
hypotheses, are subject to ethical considerations,
codified and uncodified, particularly ethics related to
empirical data collection and human subjects.
Ethical considerations for scientific
conduct

▪ Research involving human subjects in institutions that


receive federal research funding must receive ethical
clearance by an independent review board.
▪ IRB must approve any research with human subjects
before it is initiated.
Ethical clearance considerations
▪ An IRB evaluates
1. the extent to which participation in a study
▪ is voluntary,
▪ does not exert physical or psychological stress, and
▪ not cause other kinds of damage to participants

2. whether participants must give consent regarding


▪ how their data will be used
▪ how their data will be reported
▪ how the data will be protected in terms of anonymity or confidentiality

3. whether participants have the right to withdraw from


participation at any time.
4. how data is stored and analysed
▪ Involves ownership, storage and backup, privacy, confidentiality, access, and reuse.
Another way of looking at research ethics
is by looking at unethical research
conduct
❖ Deception (issues of full disclosure)
• Withholding information about the aim of the study
• Misleading participants about the risks inherent in participating in the study
❖ Plagiarism
❖ Conducting research that does not have a scientific base (ill-formed
problem statement)
❖ Lack of objectivity and integrity in the design and conduct of research
• Not identifying the methodological constraints of the study that determine the
validity of the findings
• Misinterpretation of results
• Not providing details of theories and methods that might be relevant in the
interpretation of research findings
❖ Fabrication or falsification of data
❖ Not following the appropriate ascription of authorship to a publication
Another way of looking at research ethics
is by looking at unethical research
conduct
❖ Not respecting the right to privacy
❖ Not respecting the right to anonymity and
confidentiality
❖ Not respecting rights of vulnerable groups
• Children
• Mentally handicapped individuals
• The aged
• Prisoners
• Illiterate
• Those with low social status

❖ Not having due consideration for the environment


Publication Ethics:
Ethical considerations for scientific writing

▪ A subset of ethical issues in scientific conduct that relates only to


the reporting of research
▪ Very important part of scientific ethics because it is typically only
through reported research that an ethical issue is revealed
▪ we typically cannot learn about data fabrication or
amendment until those data are disclosed.
▪ We cannot identify a lack of attribution of credit until an
unnamed contributor sees it in writing
Scientific misconducts:
Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP)

Scientific misconduct refers to unethical practices


in research that compromise the integrity of
scientific work. The three primary forms of
scientific misconduct are Falsification,
Fabrication, and Plagiarism (FFP). These
actions violate the fundamental principles of
research ethics and can undermine public trust in
science.
Falsification
Falsification involves 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.
•Examples:
• Adjusting data to fit a desired outcome.
• Manipulating images (e.g., changing the contrast in gel
electrophoresis images to make results seem more
significant).
• Omitting negative or contradicting data from a study
to present a biased result.
Falsification can lead to misleading conclusions, which may
cause harm if applied in fields like medicine or
environmental science.
Fabrication
Fabrication refers to making up data or results and
recording or reporting them as if they were real.
•Examples:
• Creating fake data for experiments that were never
conducted.
• Reporting findings from nonexistent surveys or
clinical trials.
Fabrication leads to a complete distortion of scientific
knowledge, potentially influencing policy, medical
treatments, or future research based on non-existent data.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism involves taking someone else’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This can
include copying text, figures, or entire sections of research
from another source.
•Examples:
• Copying text from another researcher’s paper without
citation.
• Using someone else’s research idea or methodology
without permission or acknowledgment.
• Submitting the same research paper to different journals
without disclosure (self-plagiarism).
Plagiarism disrespects the intellectual property of other
researchers and compromises the originality of the research
process.
Consequences of FFP:
•Damage to Reputation: Researchers found guilty of FFP often face public
scrutiny, lose their credibility, and may be barred from publishing in
reputable journals.
•Retraction of Papers: Journals may retract papers that are found to
involve misconduct, impacting the entire research community relying on
those results.
•Legal or Career Repercussions: In some cases, research misconduct can
lead to job loss, legal action, or the revocation of research funding.

Prevention:
•Rigorous Peer Review: Peer review processes aim to detect misconduct
before publication.
•Ethical Training: Many institutions require researchers to undergo training
in responsible research conduct.
•Transparency in Research: Open data, materials, and methods allow for
better scrutiny of research findings.
Redundant publications:
duplicate and overlapping publications,
salami slicing

Redundant publications refer to the practice of


publishing the same or substantially similar
research in multiple places without proper
disclosure. This unethical practice can inflate a
researcher’s publication count while wasting the
time of peer reviewers and distorting the
academic record. There are three main types of
redundant publications.
Duplicate Publications
Duplicate publication occurs when the same work (or nearly
identical work) is published more than once without notifying
the readers, editors, or reviewers.
•Examples:
• Publishing the same research in two different journals
without indicating that the paper has been previously
published.
• Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals
simultaneously (also known as "simultaneous
submission").
Duplicate publications can mislead the scientific community by
giving the impression that a particular finding has been
independently verified or reproduced, when in fact it is the same
study being counted multiple times. It can also lead to wasted
resources by journals and reviewers.
Overlapping Publications
Overlapping publication occurs when a manuscript shares
significant content with another paper but is presented as a
new study, without proper citation or disclosure of the overlap.
•Examples:
• Using the same data set to draw conclusions for two
different papers without clarifying the overlap.
• Reusing substantial portions of the text from a previous
publication without proper acknowledgment
(self-plagiarism).
Overlapping publications distort the perception of novelty and
can cause confusion in the literature, as researchers may
believe they are citing new findings when in reality they are
referencing the same work repeatedly.
Salami Slicing (Segmented Publication)
Salami slicing refers to the practice of dividing a large study into
several smaller papers that each report part of the findings, even
though they would be better presented as a single, comprehensive
study.
•Examples:
• A researcher conducting a large survey but publishing individual
papers on separate variables from the same data set instead of
reporting the full findings together.
• Splitting the results of an experiment into multiple publications,
where each paper contains incremental or partial data that,
together, would form a more cohesive study.
Salami slicing can inflate a researcher’s publication record artificially
and may dilute the scientific message. It can also lead to fragmented
understanding, where readers may not fully grasp the overall
implications of a study because the results are scattered across
multiple papers.
Redundant Publications lead to …
•Loss of Trust: Journals and academic institutions take redundant publications
seriously, and researchers found guilty may suffer reputational damage or face
retraction of their papers.
•Waste of Resources: Redundant publications waste the time and efforts of
editors, reviewers, and other researchers who rely on the integrity of the scientific
record.
•Distortion of the Literature: By inflating the appearance of scientific progress,
redundant publications can skew meta-analyses and literature reviews, leading to
flawed conclusions.

How to avoid Redundant Publications


•Clear Disclosure: Researchers should disclose previous publications and any
overlap when submitting manuscripts, ensuring that editors are aware of any
related work.
•Comprehensive Reporting: Large studies should be published in their entirety,
where appropriate, rather than broken into smaller, less meaningful parts.
•Journal Policies: Many journals now have strict guidelines against duplicate or
overlapping publications and employ plagiarism detection software to catch such
instances.
Selective reporting and misrepresentation
of data
Selective reporting and misrepresentation
of data are unethical practices in scientific
research where findings are presented in a
biased or misleading way. These practices
can severely distort scientific knowledge,
lead to erroneous conclusions, and
undermine the credibility of research.
Selective Reporting
Selective reporting occurs when researchers choose to report only positive,
significant, or desired outcomes, while ignoring or downplaying negative,
non-significant, or conflicting results. This creates a biased representation of
the research findings.

•Examples:
• Only publishing favorable results while withholding unfavorable data
that doesn’t support the hypothesis (also known as "cherry-picking").
• Reporting only statistically significant results without mentioning
non-significant findings from the same study.
• Failing to disclose secondary or exploratory analyses that contradict
the primary findings.

Distortion of the scientific record: Other researchers who rely on published


results to build on existing knowledge may form inaccurate conclusions,
leading to skewed literature reviews or meta-analyses.
Bias in clinical trials: In fields like medicine, selective reporting can have
serious consequences, as it may give an exaggerated sense of a drug’s
efficacy or safety while underreporting adverse effects.
Misrepresentation of Data
Misrepresentation of data involves deliberately altering, misinterpreting, or
presenting data in a misleading way to make the findings appear more favorable or
significant than they actually are. This could involve manipulating graphs, altering
figures, or presenting statistical results in a deceptive manner.

•Examples:
• Data manipulation: Adjusting data points or statistical analyses to achieve
desired results (e.g., rounding numbers, removing outliers without
justification).
• Misleading graphs or visuals: Creating visual representations of data that
exaggerate differences, such as by manipulating the scales of graphs.
• P-hacking: Conducting multiple statistical tests until significant results are
found, then reporting only those results, even if they are due to chance.

False conclusions: Misrepresentation can lead to the publication of false or


misleading conclusions that may influence future research, policy decisions, or
clinical guidelines.
Erosion of trust: When misrepresentation is uncovered, it not only damages the
credibility of the researchers involved but also undermines public trust in scientific
research as a whole.
Common Forms of Selective Reporting and
Misrepresentation:

•Reporting Bias: This includes a range of biases like publication


bias (where studies with positive results are more likely to be
published), outcome reporting bias (reporting only significant
outcomes), and analysis bias (only reporting certain analyses
that yield desired results).
•Incomplete Reporting: In some cases, researchers may
selectively report the methods and materials used in their
study, which makes it difficult for others to replicate or verify
the findings.
•Overstating Findings: Researchers may exaggerate the
significance or implications of their results, often using terms
like “breakthrough” or “significant” when the data does not
fully support such conclusions.
Selective Reporting and Misrepresentation
may cost …

•Skewed Meta-analyses: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses


rely on published data to synthesize findings across studies.
Selective reporting or misrepresentation can distort these
reviews, leading to incorrect scientific conclusions.
•Wasted Resources: Misleading studies may cause researchers
to follow unproductive lines of inquiry, wasting time, funding,
and effort.
•Ethical Violations: In fields like clinical research, selectively
reporting or misrepresenting data can put human lives at risk
by hiding critical information about drug efficacy or side
effects.
Hence, we need to do
•Pre-registration of Studies: Pre-registering studies and their
hypotheses (especially in clinical trials) helps ensure
transparency and reduces the likelihood of selective reporting.
•Data Transparency: Sharing raw data along with publications
encourages scrutiny and validation of results by the broader
research community.
•Rigorous Peer Review: Peer reviewers and journal editors
should scrutinize methods and data presentation closely, asking
for clarification when necessary.
•Ethical Guidelines and Policies: Institutions and funding
agencies should enforce strict guidelines against selective
reporting and misrepresentation, with consequences for those
who violate them.
Plagiarism

▪ the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and


publication of another author’s language, thoughts, ideas, or
expressions and their representation as one’s own work.
▪ the act of passing off someone else's work as your own, whether
intentionally or unintentionally.
▪ The most common form of scientific misconduct.
Forms of plagiarism

▪ Intentional plagiarism
▪ a writer knowingly lifts text directly from other authors’ work without
giving appropriate credit.

▪ Duplicate publication
▪ an author submits for publication a previously published work as if it were
original.

▪ Self-plagiarism
▪ a writer copies large parts of an earlier manuscript word for word into a
new manuscript.
▪ can occur when individuals pursue large programs of research over many
years on the same topic, so they are constantly building on their own work
and in their own language.
Protecting against plagiarism

1. Always acknowledge the sources of and contributions to your ideas.


2. Enclose in quotation marks any passage of text that is directly taken
from another author’s work and acknowledge that author in an
in-text citation.
3. Acknowledge every source you use in writing, whether you
paraphrase it, summarise it, or quote it directly.
4. When paraphrasing or summarising other authors’ work, reproduce
the meaning of the original author’s ideas or facts as closely as
possible using your own words and sentence composition.
5. Do not copy sections of your previously published work into a new
manuscript without citing the publication and using quotation marks.
Recognition of co-author contributions

▪ Concerns the appropriate acknowledgement (not too much or too little) of collaborators’
substantial contributions to a piece of scholarly work.

▪ An ethical issue that appears frequently in scientific work because collaboration is the norm, not
the exception.
▪ Working alone means less productivity
▪ Working alone means having to do every thing well
▪ Collaboration means sharing workload, complementing skills, broadening the domain of
interest

▪ Recognizing co-author contributions appropriately be difficult to deal with because the correct
attribution of credit sounds easy but is hard to identify in practice.

▪ Making co-authorship decisions is important because on the one hand co-authorship confers
credit to individuals for their contribution to academic tasks, which can have academic, social,
and financial implications; but on the other hand, co-authorship also implies responsibility and
accountability for published works.
Four ethical issues relating to
co-authorship

1. Coercion authorship
▪ Occurs when intimidation is used to gain authorship credit, such as
when a senior person pressures a more junior person to include the
senior person’s name on a paper to which he or she has not
contributed enough to qualify for authorship.

2. Gift authorship
▪ Occurs when individuals are given recognition as co-authors without
having made substantial contributions, often for reasons like
acknowledging friendship, gaining favour, or giving the paper more
legitimacy by adding well-known senior researchers to the list of
authors.
Four ethical issues relating to
co-authorship

3. Mutual support authorship


▪ Occurs when two or more authors (or author groups) agree to place
their names on each other’s papers to enhance their perceived
productivity. The “authors” can count both publications towards
their own list of papers, receive citations for both papers, and so
forth.

4. Ghost authorship
▪ Occurs when papers are written by people who are not included as
authors or are not acknowledged. A typical form of ghost authorship
involves using or hiring professional scientific writers, perhaps
because the researchers feel they cannot write “well” or
“scientifically.”
Managing co-authorship

▪ Golden rule of publishing: Good papers built on good research.


▪ You can contribute in either or both areas.
▪ Most important involved in the research process warrant co-author
recognition when done by someone else but not all of them!
▪ Developing an original idea
▪ Designing a study
▪ Organizing data collection
▪ Collecting data
▪ Analyzing data
▪ Writing and revising a paper
▪ Sponsoring/funding the project
▪ Managing the project
My decision rules
▪ A co-author has…
1. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the research or the
acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the research; and
2. made substantial contributions to drafting the publication or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and
3. given final approval of the version to be published; and
4. agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including being accountable for
the parts of the work he or she has done, being able to identify which co-authors are
responsible for other parts of the work, and having integrity about the contributions of
other co-authors.
▪ Authorship of a research output should not be claimed when
1. participation rests solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data.
2. General supervision of the research group does not justify authorship.
▪ These are my criteria; they may or may not be yours. Rules change by country,
institution, and sometimes persons.

▪ E.g., the DFG (“Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft”) demands “participation in” rather


then “contribution to” the points above.
Exercise: Recognizing co-authorship
▪ Professor Smith, the head of the lab, is publishing a paper on the structure of chitin.

▪ Professor Smith’s lab collaborated with a high profile lab group in Sweden that had
already engineered and published the correct gene construct to express chitin in vitro,
and who sent some of their materials to help Professor Smith’s team.

▪ Professor Smith’s post-doc, Mary, did the majority of the lab work, staying late and
working long hours to get the necessary data. A final year PhD student, Jiang, and a
technician, Oliver, both helped Mary do some of the technical work.

▪ Professor Smith did not write any of the paper, but reviewed and edited Mary’s drafts
that she sent to him. He is writing the cover letter and submitting the paper to Nature.

▪ Mary wrote the bulk of the paper but for the Introduction she used paragraphs of text
directly from Jiang’s unsubmitted, draft thesis.

Who should be listed as a co-author?


Authorship credit: what is the order of
authors?

▪ The order of authors is entirely up to the authors.


▪ Typical practices when it comes to putting the authors’ names on the
paper…
▪ Most often, the first authors are the ones who did most of the work,
with the authors listed in descending order of contributions
▪ Some put principal investigators at the end of the list
▪ Some groups do it alphabetically
▪ In some scientific fields the most highly credited author is the one
whose name appears [first/last].
▪ Social scientists tend to place the authors’ names in alphabetical order
regardless of the amount of effort that was contributed.
▪ Some journals allow annotations identifying one or two authors who did
the majority of the work (this can be important for PhD thesis defenses
or for job applications)
A formal way of handling co-auhtor
recognition: Credit

▪ Credit (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)


▪ A system introduced with the intention of recognizing individual author
contributions, reducing authorship disputes and facilitating
collaboration.
▪ Defines a set of roles that individuals can occupy in a research process
▪ Credit statements can be included in submissions or in final papers
▪ Example Credit statement
▪ Zhang San: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software Priya Singh.: Data
curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Wang Wu: Visualization,
Investigation. Jan Jansen: Supervision.: Ajay Kumar: Software, Validation.: Sun
Qi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Credit Roles
Term Definition

Conceptualization Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims

Methodology Development or design of methodology; creation of models

Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and
Software
supporting algorithms; testing of existing code

Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/ reproducibility of results/experiments
Validation
and other research outputs

Formal analysis Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data

Investigation Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection

Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing
Resources
resources, or other analysis tools

Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code,
Data Curation
where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse

Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive
Writing - Original Draft
translation)

Writing - Review & Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically
Editing critical review, commentary or revision – including pre-or postpublication stages

Visualization Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation

Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to
Supervision
the core team

Project administration Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution

Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Managing co-authorship: Communicate
early and openly

▪ Open lines of communication throughout the research process are vital.


▪ You should talk openly and frankly.
▪ It’s the team’s responsibility to create a communication environment without fear of
reprisal, demotion, or other punishment.

▪ Most important part of this process:


▪ Voicing one’s investment,
▪ Creating transparency about publication strategies,
▪ Mutually recognizing each other’s goals,
▪ Building flexibility into the process, and
▪ Establishing commonly accepted criteria for making these basic decisions.
Honest reporting

▪ An ethical standard that demands that research publications comply


with expectations for transparency, openness, and reproducibility.

▪ Typical ethical issues


▪ Publication bias
▪ systematic suppression of a certain type of research results in published
papers, such as negative hypothesis tests or replications, or
▪ systematic preference given to innovative and novel findings rather than
confirmations of known findings
▪ HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known)
▪ p-Hacking (the misuse of data analysis to find patterns in data that can be
presented as statistically significant)
Publication bias

▪ occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research study


influences the decision whether to publish or otherwise
distribute it.
▪ Known as the file-drawer problem: often investigators decline to
submit results when they are found not to support initial
hypotheses
▪ Consequence: the publication of “negative” or “insignificant”
results is impeded
▪ Then, published studies are no longer a representative sample of
the available evidence.
Hacking

▪ The false portrayal of a post hoc hypothesis as if it were an a priori


hypothesis.
▪ Can invalidates the idea of a priori hypothesis generation and subsequent
testing.
▪ Can lead to scholars not communicating valuable information about what
did not work
▪ Can lead to distorted publications limited to ideas and findings without a
faithful representation of the scientific process through which these ideas
were born.
▪ Risks increasing levels of Type 1 errors: if one attempts (too) many post
hoc analyses on the same data, some tests will generate false positives
simply by chance
▪ Risks favoring weaker theories that post hoc accommodate results rather
than correctly predict them.
p-Hacking

▪ occurs when researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until


nonsignificant results become significant.

▪ Significant results increase the chance of being published but when published data are
biased, data synthesis might lead to flawed conclusions.

▪ Means that we do not know if the strength of the relationship found is purely an
artifact of the sample, the
analytical method used, or legitimate judgment
calls made by the researcher.
Recommendations for honest reporting

▪ Pre-registration: make hypotheses public prior to data colletion


and analysis
▪ Open science: publicly share raw data used in analysis
▪ Register procedures: Make analyses (e.g., codes, programs)
available to others
▪ Conduct replications: repeat studies to see if results remain
robust
Appropriate use of language

▪ Refers to the wording of scientific reports so they are not biased in terms of
gender, race, orientation, culture, or any other characteristics.

▪ Stipulates using gender-responsible, ethnicity-responsible, and inclusive language


wherever possible.

▪ Guidelines:
▪ Specificity
▪ describe specific behaviours rather than stereotypes: e.g., calling a behavior
“dominant and opinionated” instead of “typically male”.
▪ Labelling
▪ Refer to concrete labels rather than abstract class tags, e.g., referring to countries’
populations—Mexicans or Chinese—instead of classes like “Hispanics” or “Asians”
▪ Professional acknowledgments
▪ Use professional classifications, not personal labels, like “medical practitioner” or “doctor”
instead of “female doctor.”
Responding to Allegations of Possible
Misconduct
• Journals should have a clear policy on handling concerns or allegations
about misconduct, which can arise regarding authors, reviewers, editors,
and others. Journals do not have the resources or authority to conduct a
formal judicial inquiry or arrive at a formal conclusion regarding
misconduct. That process is the role of the individual's employer,
university, granting agency, or regulatory body. However, journals do have
a responsibility to help protect the integrity of the public scientific record
by sharing reasonable concerns with authorities who can conduct such an
investigation.

• Deception may be deliberate, by reckless disregard of possible
consequences, or by ignorance. Since the underlying goal of misconduct is
to deliberately deceive others as to the truth, the journal's preliminary
investigation of potential misconduct must take into account not only the
particular act or omission, but also the apparent intention (as best it can
be determined) of the person involved. Misconduct does not include
unintentional error.
Responding to Allegations of Possible
Misconduct
• The most common forms of scientific misconduct include (the following
are taken with minor modification from the ORI publication Analysis of
Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
[http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/polanal2.htm, full report in PDF format,
accessed 3/13/04]):
• Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective
reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful
suppression and/or distortion of data.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of
another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as
one's own original work.
• Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as
excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in
more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have
not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of
multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
Responding to Allegations of Possible
Misconduct
• Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange
of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of
reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can
constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in
proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased
results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
• Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting
research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of
applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects,
investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical
materials.
• Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false
accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or
destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons
involved in the allegation or investigation.
• Deliberate misrepresentation of qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to
advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional
advancement.

Responses to possible misconduct
• Journals should have an explicit policy describing the process by which they will respond to
allegations of misconduct. The process described in the following 2 paragraphs is an example
of a policy for an individual journal:
• All allegations of misconduct will be referred to the Editor-In-Chief, who will review the
circumstances in consultation with the deputy editors. Initial fact-finding will usually include a
request to all the involved parties to state their case, and explain the circumstances, in
writing. In questions of research misconduct centering on methods or technical issues, the
Editor-In-Chief may confidentially consult experts who are blinded to the identity of the
individuals, or if the allegation is against an editor, an outside editor expert. The
Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors will arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is enough
evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe there is a possibility of misconduct. Their goal
is not to determine if actual misconduct occurred, or the precise details of that misconduct.
• When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the
manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation
described above will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the
responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or
editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated.
• All such allegations should be kept confidential; the number of inquiries and those involved
should be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this end. Whenever possible,
references to the case in writing should be kept anonymous.
Responses to possible misconduct
• Journals have an obligation to readers and patients to ensure that their published research is both
accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard. Therefore, if the inquiry concludes there is a
reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the
apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their
implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the
participating parties and institutions.
The following options are ranked in approximate order of severity:
• A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made,
where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.
• A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future such instances, where
the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.
• A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution that a investigation be
carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in writing to the journal.
• Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if appropriate (and
unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require approval of authors, and should be
reported to their institution.
• Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, published in the journal,
informing readers and the indexing authorities (National Library of Medicine, etc), if there is a formal
finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be
reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal. It should also
meet other requirements established by the International Committee of Journal Editors (accessed
12/2/03). It is recommended that editors inform readers and authors of their reservation of the right to
publish a retraction if it meets these conditions, thereby helping decrease arguments with authors.
• Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from
further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.
Principles of Transparency and Best
Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Introduction
• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and
the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organizations that
have collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for
scholarly publications.
• Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit. They should not be affected
by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs,
race, or religion of the authors. Journals should ensure no policies create an
exclusionary environment for anyone wanting to engage with the journal and should
regularly assess their policies for inclusivity.
• Journal content (Name of journal, Website, Publishing schedule, Archiving,
Copyright, Licensing)
• Journal practices (Publication ethics, Peer review, Access)
• Organization (Ownership and management, Advisory body, Editorial team/contact
information)
• Business practices (Author fees, Other revenue, Advertising, Direct marketing)
• Translations (Português, Bengali, Prevod, Latin American Spanish [version 3.0])
Principles of Transparency and Best
Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Journal content Organization
1. Name of journal 10. Ownership and management
2. Website 11. Advisory body
3. Publishing schedule 12. Editorial team/contact information
4. Archiving
5. Copyright Business practices
6. Licensing 13. Author fees
14. Other revenue
Journal practices 15. Advertising
7. Publication ethics and related 16. Direct marketing
editorial policies
8. Peer review
9. Access

You might also like