This document summarizes a presentation about editorial responsibility in the open access world. It discusses COPE's core practices for ensuring research quality. It also discusses how journals are embracing changes like registered reports and data validation to improve methods and data quality. The presentation argues that transparency from journals can help researchers understand journal value. It suggests considering how to achieve a form of quality that benefits both highly cited "rock stars" and larger numbers of researchers.
This is a presentation I gave at the Library of Congress as part of a NFAIS/FLICC/CENDI meeting as outlined here: http://www.chemspider.com/blog/making-the-web-work-for-science-presentation-at-the-library-of-congress.html
The presentation provides an overview of some of the challenges the publishers face moving forward, how they are responding to it, how InChI is an enabling technology, how quality is important.
Force11: Enabling transparency and efficiency in the research landscapemhaendel
Presented at the Feb 2015, NISO Virtual Conference
Scientific Data Management: Caring for Your Institution and its Intellectual Wealth
http://www.niso.org/news/events/2015/virtual_conferences/sci_data_management/
Scott Edmunds slides for class 8 from the HKU Data Curation (module MLIM7350 from the Faculty of Education) course covering open science and data publishing
September 20, 2021, George Washington University: Ethics classC0pe
Dr. Daniel Kulp gave a presentation on publication ethics and trends at George Washington University. He discussed his background and role as COPE Chair at the American Chemical Society. He outlined COPE's core practices and resources around issues like peer review, image manipulation, AI, preprints, and translated guidance. The presentation included case studies on DOIs, plagiarism in book chapters, social media surveys, unresponsive authors, and papers published without permission. Kulp emphasized COPE's role in establishing standards and providing guidance on emerging topics in publication ethics.
This document discusses the need for open data standards in cell migration research. It describes how standardizing data formats like biotracks for cell tracking data can facilitate data sharing and re-use. This would allow for more analysis possibilities and help establish best practices. The CMSO community is working to develop standards, including re-using some existing ones and defining new migration-specific standards. The ultimate goals are improved reproducibility, data verification and enabling new discoveries through data integration and mining.
This document discusses open data and the benefits of making scientific data openly available. It begins by defining open data and listing open data licenses. The document then discusses how open data can advance science by allowing others to analyze data in new ways, improve reproducibility, and increase collaboration. Guidelines are provided for making data open, such as using data repositories and journals. The document also shares one researcher's experience developing an open-source tool called CellMissy to manage and exchange cell migration data between research groups in an effort to create an open ecosystem for sharing this type of scientific data.
This document discusses open science and its various components such as open data, open access, open code, and open peer review. It emphasizes that open science promotes transparency, collaboration, and reproducibility. While open science aims to make research more accessible and equitable, the document notes that open science faces challenges in terms of widespread adoption due to entrenched publishing and evaluation practices that still prioritize commercial publishers and journal impact factors over open principles. It calls for more action and systemic changes to fully realize the goals of open science.
The document discusses the history and development of open access initiatives for scholarly publications. It notes several important declarations from 2002-2005 that supported open access, including making publications freely available online. It describes how open access initiatives aim to unite organizations in supporting free and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed research. The document also discusses definitions of open access, copyright considerations, launching open access journals, and the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2002.
This is a presentation I gave at the Library of Congress as part of a NFAIS/FLICC/CENDI meeting as outlined here: http://www.chemspider.com/blog/making-the-web-work-for-science-presentation-at-the-library-of-congress.html
The presentation provides an overview of some of the challenges the publishers face moving forward, how they are responding to it, how InChI is an enabling technology, how quality is important.
Force11: Enabling transparency and efficiency in the research landscapemhaendel
Presented at the Feb 2015, NISO Virtual Conference
Scientific Data Management: Caring for Your Institution and its Intellectual Wealth
http://www.niso.org/news/events/2015/virtual_conferences/sci_data_management/
Scott Edmunds slides for class 8 from the HKU Data Curation (module MLIM7350 from the Faculty of Education) course covering open science and data publishing
September 20, 2021, George Washington University: Ethics classC0pe
Dr. Daniel Kulp gave a presentation on publication ethics and trends at George Washington University. He discussed his background and role as COPE Chair at the American Chemical Society. He outlined COPE's core practices and resources around issues like peer review, image manipulation, AI, preprints, and translated guidance. The presentation included case studies on DOIs, plagiarism in book chapters, social media surveys, unresponsive authors, and papers published without permission. Kulp emphasized COPE's role in establishing standards and providing guidance on emerging topics in publication ethics.
This document discusses the need for open data standards in cell migration research. It describes how standardizing data formats like biotracks for cell tracking data can facilitate data sharing and re-use. This would allow for more analysis possibilities and help establish best practices. The CMSO community is working to develop standards, including re-using some existing ones and defining new migration-specific standards. The ultimate goals are improved reproducibility, data verification and enabling new discoveries through data integration and mining.
This document discusses open data and the benefits of making scientific data openly available. It begins by defining open data and listing open data licenses. The document then discusses how open data can advance science by allowing others to analyze data in new ways, improve reproducibility, and increase collaboration. Guidelines are provided for making data open, such as using data repositories and journals. The document also shares one researcher's experience developing an open-source tool called CellMissy to manage and exchange cell migration data between research groups in an effort to create an open ecosystem for sharing this type of scientific data.
This document discusses open science and its various components such as open data, open access, open code, and open peer review. It emphasizes that open science promotes transparency, collaboration, and reproducibility. While open science aims to make research more accessible and equitable, the document notes that open science faces challenges in terms of widespread adoption due to entrenched publishing and evaluation practices that still prioritize commercial publishers and journal impact factors over open principles. It calls for more action and systemic changes to fully realize the goals of open science.
The document discusses the history and development of open access initiatives for scholarly publications. It notes several important declarations from 2002-2005 that supported open access, including making publications freely available online. It describes how open access initiatives aim to unite organizations in supporting free and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed research. The document also discusses definitions of open access, copyright considerations, launching open access journals, and the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2002.
This document discusses authorship and COPE's role in promoting integrity in research publication. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is an organization with over 11,000 members that provides resources and guidance to ensure ethical standards. The document outlines that authorship is important because it confers credit, responsibility, and legal rights. However, determining authorship can be challenging, especially with increasing numbers of authors and multi-disciplinary work. COPE addresses these challenges by promoting core practices like transparent authorship policies and training, as well as standards to clearly attribute contributions like ORCID IDs and CRediT.
This document discusses authorship and COPE's role in promoting integrity in research publication. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is an organization with over 11,000 members that provides resources and guidance to ensure ethical standards. The document outlines that authorship is important because it confers credit, responsibility, and legal rights. However, determining authorship can be challenging, especially with increasing numbers of authors and multi-disciplinary work. COPE addresses these challenges by promoting core practices like transparent authorship policies and training, as well as standards to clearly attribute contributions like ORCID IDs and CRediT.
This document provides an introduction to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and discusses publication ethics. It describes COPE's mission to educate and advance knowledge around safeguarding scholarly integrity. COPE membership includes over 12,500 members in over 100 countries representing various subject areas. The document outlines some of the key challenges in publication ethics according to COPE's membership surveys, including a lack of training in research and publication ethics. It also summarizes different types of ethics issues that may arise, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and fraud. Resources provided by COPE to support publication ethics are mentioned.
Research Ethics and Integrity: How COPE can helpC0pe
COPE assists journals and publishers with publication ethics issues. It describes 10 core practices for maintaining integrity, including policies on authorship, misconduct allegations, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and complaints. COPE has over 40 council members from various countries and disciplines. It provides resources like guidelines, flowcharts and training to help journals uphold ethical standards. COPE also engages with China on these issues, through seminars, Chinese language materials and responding to the country's new research regulations.
Citation maniuplation: The good, the bad and the uglyC0pe
This document provides an overview of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and its resources and services. COPE began in 1997 as a small group helping biomedical journal editors but has grown significantly. It now has over 12,000 members from various disciplines and provides many free resources like guidelines, case databases, and webinars to help editors and publishers handle ethical issues. Recently, COPE restructured its resources around 10 "Core Practices" to make information more accessible, like allegations of misconduct, authorship, peer review processes, and more. The goal is to present a high-level, principled approach to publication ethics issues on its website.
Citation manipulation the good, the bad and the uglySabahMoran
This document provides an overview of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and its resources and services. COPE began in 1997 as a small group helping biomedical journal editors but has grown significantly. It now has over 12,000 members from various disciplines and provides many free resources like guidelines, case databases, and webinars to help editors handle ethics issues like misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, and more. Recently, COPE restructured its resources under 10 "Core Practices" to make information more accessible for members dealing with different types of ethics issues in publishing.
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
This document discusses the publishing cycle and ethical responsibilities of various stakeholders involved, including authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. It outlines the key steps in the publishing process from submissions to publication and promotion. It also examines common ethical issues around authorship, peer review, data manipulation, and conflicts of interest. Finally, it presents some pilot programs aimed at increasing transparency, efficiency, and quality assurance in scholarly publishing.
The document discusses problems with traditional authorship practices in scientific publishing and proposes contributorship as an alternative. Traditional authorship obscures individual contributions, allows honorary authorships, and does not support growing specialization in science. Contributorship would provide a formal record of specific contributions using a standardized taxonomy and address issues of fairness, accountability, and efficient allocation of resources.
There are so many scientifi c journals nowadays, it is understandably challenging for the untrained eye
to be able to discern the good ones from the bad ones. Sometimes it’s hard for the well-trained eye too.
A major shift in scientifi c publishing happened in the last decade with the introduction of open access
publishing model. The model is a superb way to disseminate the knowledge but it has also given an
unfortunate rise of online journals that fall under the category of ‘predatory’ journals
This document provides an overview of open access, including:
- Defining open access as digital literature that is free to read, distribute, and use without restrictions.
- Describing the open access movement to make scholarly literature openly accessible online at no cost.
- Explaining how open access has emerged due to factors like growing information and the need for access, as well as budget cuts straining library resources.
- Detailing benefits of open access for authors, institutions, and society, such as increased visibility, citation rates, and efficient use of public funding.
Open Access - PeerJ Presentation to Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL)Peter Binfield
Slides from the PeerJ presentation to Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) on May 23rd 2013. As hosted by Mark Biggin. Originally titled “What's All the Fuss About Open Access? What Do I Need to Know, and How Does it Benefit Me?”
Modern research metrics and new models of evaluation have risen high on the academic agenda in the last few years. In this session two UK institutions who have adopted such metrics across their faculty will share their motivations and experiences of doing so, and explain further how they are integrating these data into existing models of review and analysis.
This document summarizes a presentation given by Chris Graf on their experience as the past co-chair of COPE from 2017-2019. Some key points:
1) The landscape of research and publishing is constantly changing, but COPE aims to respond appropriately while maintaining core values like promoting integrity and ethics.
2) COPE provides resources to support and educate on publication ethics issues and leads thinking on related debates in a neutral, professional manner.
3) Based on their experience, Graf reflects that addressing complex problems requires diversity, collaboration between different stakeholders, and mutual respect.
This presentation in intended to introduce Open Access (OA); the OA movement; OA advantages for authors, institutions and society; OA business models and publishing in OA; important tools for research and publishing; and other ‘open’ initiatives.
Ten Simple Rules for Open Access PublishersPhilip Bourne
The document outlines 10 rules that open access publishers can follow to help realize the full potential of open access publishing and move the field forward. The rules include continuing to provide fully open content; fostering automatic knowledge discovery; recognizing data and rich media as scholarship; playing upon scientists' guilt around metrics and reproducibility; promoting social media and citizen science; thinking beyond individual articles to entire research cycles; developing killer apps; and better advocacy. The overall goal is to capitalize on opportunities enabled by digital technologies and open access models.
Presentation on Peer Review integrity at the Taylor & Francis Editorial Indabas in Midrand and Cape Town on 20 and 24 March 2015 by Janet Remmington, the Taylor & Francis Arts and Humanities journals and Africa office Editorial Director.
4th World STM Journal Forum / CAST July 28, 2021C0pe
The document summarizes a presentation on trends and issues in publication ethics given by Dr. Daniel T. Kulp to the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It discusses the work of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) in establishing core practices for publication ethics. It outlines current trends COPE is focused on such as retractions, text recycling, and peer review manipulation. It also provides an overview of COPE's resources for journals, publishers, and members on these topics.
Webinar May 2021: Diversity, equity and inclusionC0pe
This document discusses challenges around handling published content that is flagged as potentially offensive or discriminatory. It defines terms like offensive, harmful, and marginalizing. Some challenges mentioned are the scale of published content, defining and identifying what is offensive, and what to do with offensive historical content. Available courses of action are discussed, like checking if the content is based on prejudiced assumptions or potentially influences harmful social attitudes. The process of who decides and power dynamics are also noted.
More Related Content
Similar to Editorial responsibility in an open access world
This document discusses authorship and COPE's role in promoting integrity in research publication. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is an organization with over 11,000 members that provides resources and guidance to ensure ethical standards. The document outlines that authorship is important because it confers credit, responsibility, and legal rights. However, determining authorship can be challenging, especially with increasing numbers of authors and multi-disciplinary work. COPE addresses these challenges by promoting core practices like transparent authorship policies and training, as well as standards to clearly attribute contributions like ORCID IDs and CRediT.
This document discusses authorship and COPE's role in promoting integrity in research publication. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is an organization with over 11,000 members that provides resources and guidance to ensure ethical standards. The document outlines that authorship is important because it confers credit, responsibility, and legal rights. However, determining authorship can be challenging, especially with increasing numbers of authors and multi-disciplinary work. COPE addresses these challenges by promoting core practices like transparent authorship policies and training, as well as standards to clearly attribute contributions like ORCID IDs and CRediT.
This document provides an introduction to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and discusses publication ethics. It describes COPE's mission to educate and advance knowledge around safeguarding scholarly integrity. COPE membership includes over 12,500 members in over 100 countries representing various subject areas. The document outlines some of the key challenges in publication ethics according to COPE's membership surveys, including a lack of training in research and publication ethics. It also summarizes different types of ethics issues that may arise, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and fraud. Resources provided by COPE to support publication ethics are mentioned.
Research Ethics and Integrity: How COPE can helpC0pe
COPE assists journals and publishers with publication ethics issues. It describes 10 core practices for maintaining integrity, including policies on authorship, misconduct allegations, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and complaints. COPE has over 40 council members from various countries and disciplines. It provides resources like guidelines, flowcharts and training to help journals uphold ethical standards. COPE also engages with China on these issues, through seminars, Chinese language materials and responding to the country's new research regulations.
Citation maniuplation: The good, the bad and the uglyC0pe
This document provides an overview of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and its resources and services. COPE began in 1997 as a small group helping biomedical journal editors but has grown significantly. It now has over 12,000 members from various disciplines and provides many free resources like guidelines, case databases, and webinars to help editors and publishers handle ethical issues. Recently, COPE restructured its resources around 10 "Core Practices" to make information more accessible, like allegations of misconduct, authorship, peer review processes, and more. The goal is to present a high-level, principled approach to publication ethics issues on its website.
Citation manipulation the good, the bad and the uglySabahMoran
This document provides an overview of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and its resources and services. COPE began in 1997 as a small group helping biomedical journal editors but has grown significantly. It now has over 12,000 members from various disciplines and provides many free resources like guidelines, case databases, and webinars to help editors handle ethics issues like misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, and more. Recently, COPE restructured its resources under 10 "Core Practices" to make information more accessible for members dealing with different types of ethics issues in publishing.
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
This document discusses the publishing cycle and ethical responsibilities of various stakeholders involved, including authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. It outlines the key steps in the publishing process from submissions to publication and promotion. It also examines common ethical issues around authorship, peer review, data manipulation, and conflicts of interest. Finally, it presents some pilot programs aimed at increasing transparency, efficiency, and quality assurance in scholarly publishing.
The document discusses problems with traditional authorship practices in scientific publishing and proposes contributorship as an alternative. Traditional authorship obscures individual contributions, allows honorary authorships, and does not support growing specialization in science. Contributorship would provide a formal record of specific contributions using a standardized taxonomy and address issues of fairness, accountability, and efficient allocation of resources.
There are so many scientifi c journals nowadays, it is understandably challenging for the untrained eye
to be able to discern the good ones from the bad ones. Sometimes it’s hard for the well-trained eye too.
A major shift in scientifi c publishing happened in the last decade with the introduction of open access
publishing model. The model is a superb way to disseminate the knowledge but it has also given an
unfortunate rise of online journals that fall under the category of ‘predatory’ journals
This document provides an overview of open access, including:
- Defining open access as digital literature that is free to read, distribute, and use without restrictions.
- Describing the open access movement to make scholarly literature openly accessible online at no cost.
- Explaining how open access has emerged due to factors like growing information and the need for access, as well as budget cuts straining library resources.
- Detailing benefits of open access for authors, institutions, and society, such as increased visibility, citation rates, and efficient use of public funding.
Open Access - PeerJ Presentation to Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL)Peter Binfield
Slides from the PeerJ presentation to Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) on May 23rd 2013. As hosted by Mark Biggin. Originally titled “What's All the Fuss About Open Access? What Do I Need to Know, and How Does it Benefit Me?”
Modern research metrics and new models of evaluation have risen high on the academic agenda in the last few years. In this session two UK institutions who have adopted such metrics across their faculty will share their motivations and experiences of doing so, and explain further how they are integrating these data into existing models of review and analysis.
This document summarizes a presentation given by Chris Graf on their experience as the past co-chair of COPE from 2017-2019. Some key points:
1) The landscape of research and publishing is constantly changing, but COPE aims to respond appropriately while maintaining core values like promoting integrity and ethics.
2) COPE provides resources to support and educate on publication ethics issues and leads thinking on related debates in a neutral, professional manner.
3) Based on their experience, Graf reflects that addressing complex problems requires diversity, collaboration between different stakeholders, and mutual respect.
This presentation in intended to introduce Open Access (OA); the OA movement; OA advantages for authors, institutions and society; OA business models and publishing in OA; important tools for research and publishing; and other ‘open’ initiatives.
Ten Simple Rules for Open Access PublishersPhilip Bourne
The document outlines 10 rules that open access publishers can follow to help realize the full potential of open access publishing and move the field forward. The rules include continuing to provide fully open content; fostering automatic knowledge discovery; recognizing data and rich media as scholarship; playing upon scientists' guilt around metrics and reproducibility; promoting social media and citizen science; thinking beyond individual articles to entire research cycles; developing killer apps; and better advocacy. The overall goal is to capitalize on opportunities enabled by digital technologies and open access models.
Presentation on Peer Review integrity at the Taylor & Francis Editorial Indabas in Midrand and Cape Town on 20 and 24 March 2015 by Janet Remmington, the Taylor & Francis Arts and Humanities journals and Africa office Editorial Director.
4th World STM Journal Forum / CAST July 28, 2021C0pe
The document summarizes a presentation on trends and issues in publication ethics given by Dr. Daniel T. Kulp to the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It discusses the work of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) in establishing core practices for publication ethics. It outlines current trends COPE is focused on such as retractions, text recycling, and peer review manipulation. It also provides an overview of COPE's resources for journals, publishers, and members on these topics.
Webinar May 2021: Diversity, equity and inclusionC0pe
This document discusses challenges around handling published content that is flagged as potentially offensive or discriminatory. It defines terms like offensive, harmful, and marginalizing. Some challenges mentioned are the scale of published content, defining and identifying what is offensive, and what to do with offensive historical content. Available courses of action are discussed, like checking if the content is based on prejudiced assumptions or potentially influences harmful social attitudes. The process of who decides and power dynamics are also noted.
The document discusses updates from the COPE Working Group regarding author name changes. It provides highlights from forthcoming guidance being drafted around name changes which state that authors can request a name change for any reason, journals should have a central form for requests, and should not require proof of identification or notify co-editors when making the change. It also discusses personal reflections on longer term goals around supporting name changes, including adopting universal identifiers, developing more flexible platforms, and treating name changes as an accessibility issue.
Acknowledging lack of diversity and the continuing challenges facing publishingC0pe
This document summarizes a webinar on diversity, equity and inclusion presented by Deborah C Poff. It discusses 4 main topics: 1) definitions of discrimination/bias and identifiers of diversity, 2) representational issues in workforces and editorial boards, 3) peer review and diversity, and 4) recommendations. Specific issues raised include underrepresentation of women and minorities in publishing roles, biases in citation practices against certain languages and regions, and ensuring diverse representation among researchers and peer reviewers. Recommendations focus on reducing bias, increasing diversity, and engaging local researchers.
This document discusses predatory publishing and potential solutions. It begins with defining predatory publishing, noting that there is no agreed upon definition. Characteristics of predatory journals are outlined, including deception, lack of peer review, misleading claims. Potential stakeholders harmed by predatory publishing are identified, including authors, legitimate journals, research funding. Reasons authors may publish in predatory journals and approaches to addressing the issue, including education and legal action, are discussed.
Preprints and Ethics: Thoughts from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) C0pe
This document discusses preprints and ethics from the perspective of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It raises several ethical questions to consider regarding preprints, such as whether preprints are considered publications, if they establish precedence, what happens to preprints after journal publication, if papers can be posted on multiple preprint platforms, and license implications. The document recommends transparency among journals, publishers, preprint platforms, and authors, and that all parties clearly communicate their policies regarding preprints.
Responsible authorship symposium WCRI 2019: a COPE viewC0pe
This document summarizes a panel discussion on responsible authorship practices. The panel included representatives from COPE, institutions, journals, and third parties. COPE analyzed 134 authorship cases and found the most common problems were claims of stolen work, incomplete institutional investigations, undeclared conflicts of interest, and misconduct in research. Common authorship disputes involved changes to the author list after submission and claims of authorship after publication. Many cases were extremely complex with legal issues.
Complexities and approaches to predatory publishingC0pe
This document discusses predatory publishing and potential solutions. It begins with defining predatory publishing, noting that there is no agreed upon definition. Characteristics of predatory journals are outlined, including deception, lack of peer review, misleading claims. Potential stakeholders harmed by predatory publishing are identified, including authors, legitimate journals, research funding. Reasons authors may publish in predatory journals and approaches to addressing the issue, including education and legal action, are discussed.
Ética: principios de transparencia y buenas prácticas editoriales (Ethics: p...C0pe
COPE es una organización sin fines de lucro que busca promover la integridad en las publicaciones académicas. Ofrece consejos y recursos para editores sobre temas éticos como conflictos de intereses, autoría, revisión por pares, y retractación de artículos. Sus principales actividades incluyen proveer directrices, casos de discusión, y foros para que editores puedan aprender sobre buenas prácticas editoriales.
Ethical challenges in the arts, humanities and social sciences: initial resea...C0pe
This document summarizes initial research findings from a study conducted by COPE on ethical challenges faced by editors in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The study involved online focus groups and surveys of editors. Key findings include:
1) Editors reported difficulties with issues like plagiarism, bias in peer reviews, and data/image fabrication.
2) Editors were least confident in handling cases of data/image fabrication.
3) Emerging issues identified included maintaining inclusion as author diversity increases and addressing ethical questions around big data and AI.
4) Editors reported relying most on support from senior editors and boards, with COPE guidance being less commonly used.
5) The study's
Just Ideas? The Status and Future of Publication Ethics in Philosophy C0pe
This document summarizes a presentation on a project examining publication ethics in philosophy. The project conducted surveys of journal policies, focus groups with editors and publishers, and community feedback sessions. It produced a white paper identifying issues such as a lack of agreed upon best practices, need for more transparency, and increasing diversity. Key recommendations included encouraging discussion of ethics issues, diversifying journal leadership, improving collaboration, and enhancing peer review processes. The project aims to foster awareness of ethics concerns in philosophy publishing.
This document summarizes a seminar titled "Women Also Know History" presented by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture and William & Mary. It discusses how fields have historically excluded women and the importance of expanding networks and supporting more diverse scholars. It introduces speakers from the University of Pittsburgh and Princeton who will discuss how the website and social media campaign "Women Also Know History" aims to create profiles of thousands of women historians to make their work more visible and increase their recognition, citing anecdotal evidence of its impact.
IN THE AFTERMATH OF AUTHORSHIP VIOLATIONS IN PHILOSOPHY: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONSC0pe
Michael V. Dougherty discusses problems with authorship violations like pseudonyms and plagiarism in philosophy. He summarizes scenarios where pseudonyms are used and issues they cause like lessening accountability. Dougherty also sent requests to clarify authorship of 11 pseudonymously published articles, with 6 receiving corrections. To avoid future issues, he recommends encouraging institutional email addresses and ORCID identifiers for submissions. Plagiarism also corrupts the research literature and wastes resources. It denies credit to genuine authors and falsifies discovery histories. Dougherty examines varieties of plagiarism like copy-paste, compression, and translation plagiarism. He provides case studies and recommends solutions for editors and publishers, like avoiding statutes of
The document summarizes a presentation on text recycling research. It discusses four topics:
1) A survey of journal editors and academics on their beliefs about appropriate text recycling practices.
2) A text analysis study examining the prevalence of text recycling in STEM research papers.
3) Legal issues around when text recycling violates copyright or contract law.
4) Implications and future work on text recycling. Scenarios are provided to gauge attitudes on copying apparatus descriptions and diagrams between papers. Initial survey findings show views vary based on the source and structural location of the recycled text.
The document analyzes data on over 3,700 retracted scientific papers published in journals covered by the Web of Science. It finds that the number of retractions has increased rapidly since 2000. Clinical medicine and life sciences see the most retractions. Unknown or undisclosed reasons account for about 25% of retractions. Known reasons include errors, duplicate publishing, plagiarism, and data issues. Retractions are seen more in fields with strong international competition and rapid publishing. The document discusses whether pressure to publish contributes to misconduct and questions the role of journals in verification.
The document discusses retractions from a publisher's perspective. It notes that Elsevier publishes 2500 journals and 500,000 new papers per year. Retractions are used to correct the scholarly record and maintain trust in science. Elsevier issues around 200 retractions per year for serious ethical infringements or errors. They have a retraction panel to ensure retractions are fair, clear, and accurate. Future challenges include preventing unknowing citation of retracted papers and further differentiating retraction types.
This document provides updated guidelines for retracting academic articles in 2019. It discusses when an article should be retracted, such as for serious errors, scientific misconduct, or legal issues. The guidelines differentiate retractions from expressions of concern, letters to the editor, and corrigenda. It also notes that articles should be retracted promptly once the need for retraction is determined.
This document discusses authorship practices and addressing problems that may arise. It begins with an introduction to COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, which has over 12,000 members in 100+ countries and establishes core practices for transparency and integrity. Potential issues with authorship are identified, such as contributors not being included or those insisting on inclusion without sufficient contributions. The document also discusses how to manage problems, like disagreements between authors, inability to contact an author, or requests for authorship after publication. Several cases are presented and feedback provided. Resources from COPE on authorship best practices and issues are also listed.
Michael Wise from COPE discussed COPE's view on preprints. COPE sees benefits for authors in quick publication of preprints with minimal checks and potential to establish precedence. However, preprints also present challenges like potential scooping of authors' work and lack of clarity around journal acceptance of preprinted manuscripts. Journals face issues like license clashes and ethical questions around preprints if issues are later found in the published article. COPE recommends authors research journal policies on preprints and for journals to have clear preprint policies.
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
The chapter Lifelines of National Economy in Class 10 Geography focuses on the various modes of transportation and communication that play a vital role in the economic development of a country. These lifelines are crucial for the movement of goods, services, and people, thereby connecting different regions and promoting economic activities.
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
1. publicationethics.org
Editorial responsibility in
the open access world
COPE: Promoting integrity in research and its publication
Chris Graf, Co-Chair, COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics,
at the ALLEA workshop,
Ethical Aspects of Open Access: A Windy Road, January 2018.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4699-4333.
Disclosure: CG volunteers for COPE, Committee on Publication
Ethics. CG works for Wiley.
2. publicationethics.org
It’s still all about quality
Research and research publishing is changing fast. But it’s (still) really all
about quality. With the backdrop of COPE’s 10 Core Practices, I’ll share
thoughts on what some editors, journals, and publishers are doing to
embrace and help lead that change, with examples of how new approaches
to methods validation and data validation are being added into the editorial
process. I’ll argue that transparency from journals is one way we can help
researchers understand why reputable journals are valuable for them as
authors and as readers. And I’ll suggest that it’s time to think carefully about
what we aspire to, without losing sight of what matters most about research
quality, so that we can help more researchers to express and communicate
their research in the best possible way.
4. publicationethics.org
COPE’s Core Practices
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
COPE assists editors of scholarly journals and publishers - as well as other
parties, such as institutions - in their work to preserve and promote the
integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices. COPE
describes these in 10 “Core Practices”. COPE's Core Practices should be
considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for
research.
5. publicationethics.org
‘‘
Journals and publishers should have robust and
well-described, publicly documented practices in all
the following areas
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf
6. publicationethics.org
COPE flowcharts: How to spot manipulation of the peer review process
https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE%20PR_Manipulation_Process.pdf
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/20/new-record-major-publisher-retracting-100-studies-cancer-journal-fake-peer-reviews/
The retractions earlier this year of 107
cancer papers were arguably a case of
identity fraud. These 107 papers were
retracted after the publisher discovered
that their peer review process had been
compromised by fake peer reviewers.
It's not clear that the researchers involved
did this wittingly. It may have been the
fault of a third-party they paid to help with
language editing and submission, to help
them get their work published.
Resource: COPE guide (to the left) to
spotting manipulations in peer review.
Fake reviewers
7. publicationethics.org
The same standards apply
The same publication ethics standards defined by our core practices are expected
of all COPE members, irrespective of their business model.
COPE supports and aims to inspire good practice amongst our
members. We support campaigns that help researchers to make
good journal choices, like think.check.submit. We have a
sanctions process for occasions where our members need to
demonstrate better practice. COPE doesn’t often refer to blacklists
or predatory journals, and explains more in “
The changing face and future of publication ethics”
8. publicationethics.org
Beyond editorial
responsibilities
The 16 Principles of Transparency from COPE, DOAJ,
OASPA, and WAME include some specifics about business
responsibilities (beyond editorial responsibilities).
https://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv3.pdf
11. publicationethics.org
Support quality, actively
What about working in new ways?
Methods validation
Data validation
Note: The slides from here on are personal observations, which
may or may not reflect COPE’s position or recommendations
13. publicationethics.org
‘‘
Methods validation:
Registered Reports
Daryl O’Connor on Registered Reports at Journal of Neuropsychology, edited by Martin Edwards
Registered Reports will increase the transparency of
our science and allow peer review of research
before results are known... improving the quality of
our research protocols, that will ultimately improve
the robustness of our evidence base
https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/we-are-working-wiley-improve-replicability-and-transparency-re
Disclosure: Wiley publishes J Neuropsychology for BPS
15. publicationethics.org
A quality problem: Data
Perhaps 50% of published 13
C NMR datasets contain errors. Some are
simple typos. Others are completely incorrect structures, where a chemist
thinks they’ve made one structure but actually they’ve made something
different.
16. publicationethics.org
Data validation
An example of new ways to validate data
Wiley Smart Spectra Repository (SSR) is a tool for
research validation. It helps researchers publish higher-
quality, correct data.
SSR checks if a chemical structure and the submitted 13
C
NMR data are consistent and shows where errors might
be.
https://www.wsslabs.com
Disclosure: This is a Wiley service
21. publicationethics.org
Carpets
In “The art of buying a carpet,” Simon Busch
suggests that a wise carpet buyer checks a
carpet’s knot count (“You will find much truth under
the carpet: turn it over”), examines its fibre (silk
and wool, or something else?), and takes a close
look at its colour (“Bend the carpet so as to expose
individual threads from the base to the tip.”)
Picture by Garry Knight (Flickr: Persian Carpet) CC BY-SA 2.0 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APersian_Carpet.jpg
https://publicationethics.org/news/research-integrity-and-how-buy-persian-carpet-top-guidelines-part-2
22. publicationethics.org
The same is true for research
When research authors share and cite their data; describe their methods in
detail; make their materials available; and share information about their
analysis then other people can check the knot count, fibre, and colour of that
particular research project.
https://publicationethics.org/news/research-integrity-and-how-buy-persian-carpet-top-guidelines-part-2
23. publicationethics.org
TOP, part 2: An ongoing draft
“Promoting an open research culture,” published
by Nosek and colleagues in Science, presents
the Transparency and Openness Promotion
guidelines: How to aim for research transparency
in 8 standards and 3 levels. TOP is widely
endorsed. But not widely implemented. This is
where TOP part 2 picks up.
And it is in draft now (January 2018) for you at this link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NI6P4M2UKekXoZuFR2uuQ2Tj1
24. publicationethics.org
In the open access world
editorial responsibility is still all
about quality
But maybe we need to aspire to a kind of quality that works members of
orchestras (as well as for Taylor Swift)
27. publicationethics.org
12,000+ members, 100+ countries
• As an organization, COPE’s role is to assist editors of scholarly journals and
publisher/owners in their endeavour to preserve and promote the integrity of
the scholarly record through policies and practices that reflect the current best
principles of transparency as well as integrity.
• COPE is a membership organization. Our members are primarily editors of
journals and publishers although we are currently exploring expanding our
membership. Part of this potential expansion is being explored with a pilot project
with five universities around the world.
• COPE operates, manages and governs the organization with a small group of
paid employees and a large group of very active volunteers who serve on the
trustee board and council.
28. publicationethics.org
30+ Council members
Lead all the work of COPE,
Subcommittees, Working groups
12,000+ members
10+ Trustees
Members of Council with
legal responsibilities for COPE
Vote
Vote
Appoint
31. ‘‘
Led by an invisible hand
In [a free economy] there is one and only one
social responsibility of business―to use its
resources and engage in activities designed to
increase its profits so long as it stays within the
rules of the game.
It is the responsibility of the rest of us to establish
a framework of law such that an individual in
pursuing his own interest is, to quote Adam Smith
again, ‘led by an invisible hand to promote an end
which was no part of his intention.’
Corporate Social Responsibilty: Friedman's View https://bfi.uchicago.edu/news/feature-story/corporate-
social-responsibilty-friedmans-view Quoting Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 2002
Fortieth Anniversary Edition, p 133
Picture by http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/milton-friedman-167.php [CC BY-SA 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
32. publicationethics.org
‘‘We need a culture of
responsibility for the integrity of
the literature… it’s not
just the job of editors
Ginny Barbour, 2012—2017 COPE Chair
Editor's Notes
Handout https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE%20PR_Manipulation_Process.pdf
The recent retraction of 107 cancer papers is arguably a case of identity fraud. These 107 papers were retracted after the publisher discovered that their peer review process had been compromised by fake peer reviewers. It's not clear that the researchers involved did this wittingly. It may have been the fault of a third-party they paid to help with language editing and submission, to help them get their work published. Spotting fake peer reviewers is hard, and this problem is not new: A little over two years ago, a publisher retracted 64 papers from 10 journals for the same reason, and the cheating gets more sophisticated.
And: Our toolkit makes launching easy for other journals Wiley publishes, says Rebecca Harkin at Wiley
Edited By: Martin Edwards
The researcher can download a copy of their verification form and submit it with their manuscript to any journal at any publisher.
We are working to integrate SSR into the editorial office workflow for Wiley journals like the European Journal of Organic Chemistry.
1257 spectra from 186 so far.
Wiley: we need a “systems” approach
Ways to encourage change in positive directions
-- Policies
-- Processes (supported by tools)
-- People to make those changes
------ Training, awareness inside Wiley
------ Awareness outside Wiley
COPE and Wiley visited the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA in September 2017. Together with 40+ people we workshopped an extension to TOP designed to make the original TOP guidelines easy to implement. This means making TOP easy for researchers to understand and adopt as research authors. And easy for journals (and other places where research is communicated, like perhaps preprint servers and data repositories) to display, so research readers can check the knot count, fibre, and colour and then build-upon a piece of work.
For you, now, the draft article from that TOP workshop is ready. We share it here with permission from the organisers of the TOP project at Center for Open Science. Please, take a look. And do share your thoughts: it is an ongoing draft.
It is that collaboration that’s key, because cultural change is hard [15]. This is a road we have to travel together: funders, institutions, researchers, editors, journals and publishers
How we peer review and publish research at Wiley is built on the great work of our editors and publishing teams. This work is always a collaboration with researchers and academic communities around the world who write, peer review, and then build upon the work we publish with their own research.
Looking wider, funders and institutions shape how we work, when they decide how to fund and reward research and academic work, and when they decide how to support researchers with training and mentorship.
When it comes to research integrity and publishing ethics, this is a road we must travel together.