This document discusses publishers' role in ensuring publication ethics. It argues that publishers share responsibility with editors for the integrity of their publications. While misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication and falsification are rare, occurring in around 2% of studies, publishers can work to prevent, detect and appropriately respond to misconduct through educating authors and implementing screening tools and clear policies. The document also notes that maintaining editorial independence and avoiding conflicts of interest are important for upholding ethics and trust in academic publishing.

1. Publishers’ role in publication ethics:
part of the solution
or part of the problem?
Liz Wager
Publications Consultant, Sideview
Chair, COPE, 2009-2012
liz@sideview.demon.co.uk
©Sideview

2. Why should publishers be
concerned about ethics?
 Responsible for the integrity of their
publications (with editors)
 As professionals
 To avoid expensive problems (litigation)
 Good for business
©Sideview

3. Scholarly publishers have
special obligations
“Be careful about reading health books.
You may die of a misprint.”
Mark Twain
©Sideview

4. Not only in medicine …
©Sideview

5. What can go wrong?
 Misconduct by authors
• Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification
 Misconduct by editors
• Abuse of position, unfairness
 Misconduct by peer reviewers
• Theft of ideas/data
 Misconduct by publishers
• Undue commercial influence
©Sideview

6. How common is misconduct?
 Systematic review (screened 3207 papers)
 Meta-analysis (18 studies)
• surveys of fabrication or falsification
• NOT plagiarism
 2% admitted misconduct themselves
(95% CI 0.9-4.5)
 14% aware of misconduct by others
(95% CI 9.9-19.7)
Fanelli PLoS One 2009;4(5):e5738

7. How often is misconduct detected?
PubMed retractions 0.02%
US Office of Research Integrity 0.01-0.001%
(ORI) (1 in 10,000 / 100,000 scientists)
Image manipulation 1%
in J Cell Biology (8/800)
FDA audit – investigators guilty 2%
of serious sci misconduct

8. Because major ethical
problems are (quite) rare
 Editors don’t see many cases during their
term of office
 Publishers looking after many journals can
provide ‘corporate memory’
AND
 Editors are largely untrained

9. Publishers (and editors)
Should work to:
 prevent
 detect
 respond appropriately
to misconduct
©Sideview

10. What should journals & publishers do?
 Educate  ?screen
 Raise awareness  ?discipline
 Have clear policies

11. Tools for detecting misconduct
 Anti-plagiarism software (eg eTBLAST,
CrossCheck, Turnitin)
 Screening images (PhotoShop)
 Chemical structure checks
 Data review (digit preference)

12. CrossCheck
 Based on iParadigms software
 Compares text against publishers’ d-base
 D-base run by CrossRef (doi system)
 D-base currently contains 59,000 titles
 Shows % concordance + source
 Can exclude “quotes” and references
 ?False positives / ‘noise’ level

13. Image screening
 Pioneered by J Cell Biology
 Used in some life sciences journals
 Important for research where
the image = the findings
• genetics / cell biology / radiography
Found 1%
 Manual check using PhotoShop unacceptable
 Requires editor time / expertise manipulation
Rossner & Yamada, JCB 2004;166:11-15

14. Figure 1. Gross manipulation of blots
Rossner M., Yamada K. M. J. Cell Biol. 2004:166:11-15
© 2004 Rossner et.al.

15. Figure 1. Gross manipulation of blots
Rossner M., Yamada K. M. J. Cell Biol. 2004:166:11-15
© 2004 Rossner et.al.

16. Chemical structure checks
 Examined structure-factor files
 Identified >70 bogus organic structures
 Authors had taken a genuine structure and switched
metals (eg Fe / Cu) or chemical groups (CH2 / NH /
OH)
 Editors note: “it is a concern and a disappointment
that these [chemically implausible or impossible
structures] passed into the literature”
 >70 articles retracted
Acta Crystallographica 2010;E66:e1-2

17. Frequency Where to screen?
high
? yes
low
no ?
Severity
low high

18. Effects of journal policies
 Educate authors and reviewers
 Encourage truthful authorship
 Discourage redundant publication
 Encourage clinical trial registration
©Sideview

19. Trial
registration
clinicaltrials.gov
start online
Concerns re
publication ISRCTN ICMJE
bias FDAMA
launched deadline
Chalmers2 ICMJE
GW ABPI
announcement
Simes1 register site
Tramèr3
1980s 1986 1990 1997 1999 2000 2003 2004 2005
1
Publication Underreporting research
2
Impact of covert
3
bias is scientific misconduct duplicate publication
JCO 4:1529 JAMA 263:1405 BMJ 315:635

20. Journal policies are more
effective than US laws …
©Sideview

21. New trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov May – Oct 2005

22. What about misconduct
by publishers?
… part of the problem?
©Sideview

23. Problems
 Inappropriate policies
 Undue commercial interference
 Breach of editorial independence
 Undisclosed conflicts of interest
©Sideview

24. ©Sideview

25. Case study
 Editor of orthopaedic journal failed to
disclose receiving >$20 million in royalties
from a device company …
 What could the publisher have done?
©Sideview

26. Editorial freedom
“editorial freedom … cannot be total.
I couldn’t turn the BMJ into a soccer
magazine because I’d got bored with
medicine. Freedom must be
accompanied by accountability”
Richard Smith (former editor, BMJ)
©Sideview

27. Editorial freedom?
“freedom of the press … means
freedom to print such of the
proprietor’s prejudices as the
advertisers don’t object to”
Hannen Swaffer
©Sideview

28. Why being ethical makes
commercial sense
©Sideview

29. It can avoid
expensive litigation
• authorship disputes
• copyright
• patent disputes
©Sideview

30. Academic publishing
depends on trust
© Sideview

31. Reviewers
Editors Authors
Readers
© Sideview

32. und
ecla
biased reviews r ed C
oI
low qu
ality re
view
Reviewers
poor r
eview
er c ho
ice
Editors
Readers Authors
fla
we
d
pr ble
oc
es po nsi
se irres rting
s o
r ep
© Sideview

33. If trust Fewer
advertisers
breaks down
sed
rea
dec nue
reve
fewer
submis
sions
Dissatisfied Fewer
parent society readers Unhappy
low qu authors
ali
decrea submis ty
se sions
revenu d
e
© Sideview

34. Journals are powerful brands
© Sideview

35. Consumers trust brands for:
 Ingredients
 Process
 Quality / consistency
© Sideview

36. Consumers increasingly
question
 Company ethos
 'Fair trade'
 Environmental concerns
 Labour policies
 Animal testing
© Sideview

37. Being ethical can be a selling point
© Sideview

38. Reputation arrives on foot,
and leaves on horseback
“the pragmatic issue of how hard it is
to build a journal, and how easy it is
to destroy one”
Frank Davidoff, former editor,
Annals of Internal Medicine
©Sideview

39. Reputation
“If readers once hear that important,
relevant, and well argued articles are
being suppressed or that articles are
being published simply to fulfil
hidden political agendas, then the
credibility of the publication
collapses—and everybody loses”
Richard Smith
©Sideview

40. A fine balance
 Publishers want to make money
 Journals depend on reputation for
• Independence
• Fairness
• Academic merit
 Part of the solution or part of the problem?
©Sideview

41. Part of
the problem the solution
 Weak policies  Sound policies
 No training in ethics  Staff and editor training
 No corporate memory  Corporate memory
 Interference  Editorial independence
 Few resources  Resources for screening
 Little support for editors (eg CrossCheck)
 Support for editors
(eg joining COPE)
©Sideview

42. The things that will destroy us are:
politics without principle
pleasure without conscience
wealth without work
knowledge without character
business without morality
science without humanity
and worship without sacrifice
Mahatma Gandhi
© Sideview