Slides I presented at a workshop at World Sleep Congress 2011 in Kyoto

1. Key Concepts in
Publication Ethics
Chris Graf
Treasurer, Committee on Publication Ethics
Editorial Director, Wiley-Blackwell
cgraf@wiley.com

2. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/duplicate -submission-from-2002-in-american-journal-of-psychiatry-earns-an-expression-of-concern/

3. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/education -researcher-leaves-post-after-rampant-plagiarism-revealed/

4. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/two-papers-to-be-retracted-after-ori-finds -misconduct-by-boston-university-cancer-researcher/

5. Agenda
• Background
– Our Guidelines (with detail later)
– COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
– Survey of editors, Audit of journals
• Key ethical considerations

6. 2007

7. Our guidelines
• >30 citations
• Widely used
• Inspired other publishers to act 2007
http://bit.ly/azBf78
Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A et al. Int J Clin Pract 2007;61(s152):1–26.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01230.x

8. 2007
All our editors are
members of COPE

9. COPE is still a forum: 400 cases

10. Unethical research Unethical editorial decisions
Plagiarism
Authorship
Fabrication, falsification

11. 2008
2009
Our ethics survey
• “Most editors … seem not very
concerned about publication ethics“
• We were surprised
http://bit.ly/c8p6N7
Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C et al. J Med Ethics 2009;35:348-353.
doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324

12. Our ethics audit
• Step 1
• Worked with editors
2009
• Harvested information 2010
about their approach
to ethics
http://bit.ly/abFfDS
The COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) audit tool

13. Our Audit  Guidance
• Step 2
• Guidance for editors
• Focus: consistently high-
quality policies, processes 2010
2011

14. That’s the background

15. Detail from guidelines
• Our guidelines were written to offer:
– Practical advice
– Best practice statements
– Links to “gold standards”
http://wwwjp.blackwellpublishing.com/bw/publicationethics/

16. Key ethical consideration #1
• Transparency
– Who funded the work?
– Who did the work?
(Authorship in detail)
– Has the work been published before?

17. Authorship in detail
• Authors should meet 1, 2, and 3*:
– 1) substantial contributions to conception
and design, or acquisition of data, or
analysis and interpretation of data; and
– 2) drafting the article or revising it critically
for important intellectual content; and
– 3) final approval of the version to be
published
*International Committee of Medical Journal of Editors http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html

18. Authorship in detail
• For people who made a contribution but
who don’t meet 1 + 2 + 3?
– List names and describe contributions
– As an “Acknowledgement”

19. Key ethical consideration #2
• Research integrity
– Research misconduct
– Rights of research participants
(eg Informed consent, Privacy)
– Respecting cultures and heritage
– Informing readers about problems
(In detail)

20. Inform readers about problems
• Correction (erratum) for errors in data
or information, whatever the cause
• “Retraction” if work is proven* fraud
– Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism
– Publish a statement of retraction, not
remove article
– *Proven usually by authors’ employer or
governing body

21. Key ethical consideration #3
• Editorial standards and processes
– Peer review
– Appeals
– Conflicts of interest
(Editors, authors, peer reviewers)
– Editorial independence
– Accuracy and debate

22. Conflicts of interest
• Editors, authors, peer reviewers
• Disclose interests that might appear
to affect objectivity
• Financial (eg patent ownership, stock
ownership, consultancies, speaker's
fees), personal, political, intellectual,
religious

23. Chris Graf
Treasurer, Committee on Publication Ethics
Editorial Director, Wiley-Blackwell
cgraf@wiley.com