RPE-Notes-Module 3 - research

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

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