Publication ethics encompass rules of conduct for publishing scholarly work, focusing on integrity, transparency, and reliability to maintain trust within the scientific community. Key principles include avoiding plagiarism, disclosing conflicts of interest, ensuring accurate reporting, and safeguarding research participant rights. Ethical publication practices are essential for sustaining high-quality research standards and accountability, while mechanisms for identifying and addressing misconduct are crucial for maintaining academic integrity.

1. University Institute of Engineering and Technology
PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
Prashant Prakash
PhD scholar
Mechanical
Engineering

2. What is Publication Ethics?
Publication ethics are rules of conduct to be
followed while publishing results of scientific
research or other scholarly work. It refers to
the set of principles and standards that guide
the conduct of individuals and organizations
involved in the process of publishing
scholarly research. These principles aim to
ensure the integrity, transparency, and
reliability of published research, as well as to
maintain the trust of the scientific community
and the public in the scholarly publishing
process.
Avoiding
Plagiarism
disclosing
conflicts of
interest
Appropriately
attributing
authorship
respecting
the rights
and welfare
of research
participants
Forbids the
republication
of another's
work without
proper credit
ensuring the
accuracy and
reproducibility
of research
findings
KEY ASPECTS

3. Importance of Publication Ethics
The publication ethics promotes the aims of the research, such as knowledge, transparency, truth, and avoidance
of error.
1.Ethical publication contributes to the maintenance of high-quality
research standards, promoting rigorous methodology, accurate reporting, and
reproducibility of findings.
Many of the publication ethics promote 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.
Ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the
public.
It also helps to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust
the quality and integrity of the research.
It promotes the values that are essential to global collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect,
and fairness.
Ethical publication safeguards the rights and welfare of research
participants by ensuring informed consent, confidentiality, and respect for
their autonomy.
Ethical publication practices ensure that authors and contributors receive
appropriate credit and assist researchers and publishers in complying with
legal regulations regarding intellectual property rights and research
conduct.

4. Principles of Transparency and Best
Practice in Scholarly Publishing
COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics
DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
OASPA - Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA)
WAME - World Association of Medical Editors

5. Journal Content
1.Name of journal: Must be unique and accurately represent the journal's scope.
2.Website: Secure, maintained, non-misleading, and compliant with web standards.
3.Publishing schedule: Clearly defined frequency maintained except for exceptional
circumstances.
4.Archiving: Clear plan for digital preservation, indicating backup and long-term access.
5.Copyright: Terms clearly stated for published content, separate from website copyright.
6.Licensing: Clear licensing information for all content, especially Open Access materials.

6. Journal Practices
• Publication ethics: Clear policies on authorship, complaints, research
misconduct, conflicts, data sharing, ethical oversight, intellectual
property, corrections, retractions.
• Peer review: Transparent peer review processes, including reviewers'
identity, masking policies, decision-making, exceptions.
• Access: Description of access methods, whether free or paid, including
offline options.
Organization
• Ownership and management: Clear indication of ownership, avoiding misleading affiliations.
• Advisory body: Expert editorial boards, regularly reviewed for relevance and appropriateness.

7. Business Practices
• Author fees: Clear statement of any charges, waivers, and their influence on editorial
decisions.
• Other revenue: Transparent disclosure of revenue sources, ensuring they don't influence
editorial decisions.
• Advertising: Policy on accepting advertisements, keeping them separate from editorial
decision-making.
• Direct marketing: Appropriate, targeted, and unobtrusive marketing, ensuring
truthfulness and non-misleading information.

8. Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial
office : COPE guidelines
Robust
Practices
Transparency Clear Policies
Authorship &
Contributorshi
p
Peer Review
Processes
Misconduct
Handling
Conflicts of
Interest
Disclosure
Data
Availability &
Reporting
Ethical
Conduct
Guidelines
Copyright,
Licensing &
Fees
Journal
Management
Transparency
Post-
Publication
Management
Complaint
Handling
Clear Policies

9. Editing peer reviews : COPE
guidelines
• Clear Reviewer Guidelines: Journals should provide clear guidelines to reviewers regarding acceptable and
unacceptable aspects of review reports, including tone, language, and content.
• Journal Policy on Editing Reviews: The journal's policy should explicitly state whether reviews are subject
to editing and under what circumstances editing may occur.
• Reviewer Self-Editing: Reviewers should be given the opportunity to edit their review reports themselves to
align with the journal's guidelines.
• Notification of Significant Edits: Editors should inform reviewers if significant edits are made to their
review reports, ensuring transparency in the editing process.
• Scope of Edits: Edits to reviews should focus solely on issues of tone, language, and adherence to journal
policy and reviewer guidelines, without altering the review's meaning or the reviewer's professional opinion.
• Alternative Approaches to Editing: Editors may consider providing a cautionary note in their decision
letters instead of directly editing reviews.
• Policy on Responding to Hostile or Unprofessional Reviews: Journals should establish a policy outlining
how to address hostile or unprofessional reviews, ensuring appropriate and professional responses to such
instances.

10. Editorial board participation : COPE
guidelines
• Clear Definition of Editorial Roles: Editorial roles should be explicitly
defined, including expectations for the number and quality of reviews,
editorial decision-making levels, and details of decision chains.
• Appointment Terms: Appointment terms for editorial board members should
be clearly outlined, specifying appointment criteria, length of term,
renewal terms, and circumstances for early termination.
• Conflicts of Interest Policy: Journals should define unacceptable types
or levels of conflicts of interest for editors, which may disqualify them
from joining the board or lead to removal if unresolved.
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Potential editorial board members
should be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest,
ensuring transparency and integrity in editorial decisions.
• Limitations on Editorial Board Memberships: Journals may need to decide
whether it is appropriate for individuals to serve on multiple editorial
boards simultaneously within the same field, with similar decision-making

11. Journals’ Best Practices for ensuring consent
for publishing medical case reports: guidance
from COPE
• Importance of Proper Consent: Journals must ensure proper consent for publication is obtained and
individuals are aware of potential consequences.
• Requirement for Publication Consent Forms: Journals should require publication consent forms for
case reports where individuals or groups can be identified, including cases involving deceased persons.
Identifying information may include case histories, photos, x-rays, or genetic pedigrees.
• Availability of Consent Forms: Journals should not collect signed consent forms themselves due to
privacy and legal concerns. Instead, they should make blank consent forms available on their websites
and require authors to attest to obtaining consent.
• Author Responsibility: Authors should ensure that either the provided consent form or a form
containing all required elements is signed by the patient or proxy. If a different form is used, a blank
copy should be provided to the journal for verification.
• Original Form Retention: Authors should attest that the original signed consent form is held by the
treating institution, ensuring proper documentation and accountability.

12. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A conflict of interest exists when two or more contradictory interests relate to an activity by an individual or
an institution. It represent circumstances in which professional judgments or actions regarding a primary
interest, such as the responsibilities of a medical researcher, may be at risk of being unduly influenced by a
secondary interest, such as financial gain or career advancement.
Other Definitions
• Conflicts of interest are “situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise,
or have the appearance of compromising, an investigator’s judgement in conducting or reporting
research.” AAMC, 1990
• “A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research
that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the
integrity of the research.” NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research.

13. Publication
Misconduct
Publication misconduct refers to unethical behavior or violations of scholarly publishing norms that
compromise the integrity, credibility, or fairness of the publication process.

14. Types of Publication Misconduct
Plagiarism and copyright
infringement
•Plagiarism: Presenting someone
else’s ideas or materials as one’s
own, without proper
acknowledgment or attribution.
•Copyright infringement: Using
another person’s original work
without proper acknowledgment or
attribution.
Duplicate publication
Occurs when an author copies
and re-publishes their own
work without referencing the
previous publication.
Data fabrication and
falsification
•Data fabrication: Making up
results or altering experimental
outcomes.
•Data falsification: Manipulating
research data to present false
results.
Authorship disputes
•Ensuring proper attribution of
authorship is crucial.
•Disputes may arise when individuals
who haven’t contributed are included
as authors or when deserving
contributors are excluded.
.
Citation
manipulation
Attempts to manipulate
Journal Impact Factors by
deliberately increasing the
number of self-citations are
unethical
Peer review misconduct
Unethical behavior of individuals
involved in the peer review process
of scholarly articles.

15. VIOLATION OF PUBLICATION ETHICS, AUTHORSHIP AND
CONTRIBUTORSHIP
Duplicate /
multiple
submissions
plagiarisms
gift
authorship
fake
affiliation
pressured
authorship
Suggesting
bonus
reviewers
Violation of publication ethics refers to actions or practices that breach the established
principles and standards governing the conduct of scholarly publishing. These violations
can encompass various forms of misconduct, including but not limited to:

16. AUTHORS
• First author (collected the bulk data and written the paper)
• Middle author (can be 2 or more authors) (conducted some research and helped in analysis)
• Last author (is a principle investigator, designed the project and provided funds)
Contributor Ship
A person who has helped only in some part of the work can’t be listed as author but their contributions must
be mentioned in acknowledgements of the articles. As per ICMJE, acknowledgment should be provided for
writing, assistance, editing and proofreading
Contributors can be classified as :
• Intellectual (one who gives ideas or helps in writing)
• Practical (who helps in performing experimental)
• Financial (who helps in funding the research).

17. Unethical Authorship Practice Description
Guest authorship
Including names of individuals who have no
knowledge or contribution to the research solely
for the purpose of increasing acceptance rates. For
example, adding the name of a journal reviewer who
has not contributed to the work.
Ghost authorship
Omitting the name of the primary researcher who
conducted the majority of the work due to conflicts
of interest or ideas within the author group. The
actual contributor's name is excluded, and others
may take credit for the work.
Anonymous authorship
Using false names or pen names in place of the
actual authors' identities, which can lead to
issues such as false credit or misattribution of
work.
Surrogate authorship
Publishing someone else's work under one's own
name, where the actual author may not wish to
publish or take credit for their work. The
published work is attributed to another individual.
Gift authorship
Adding names of individuals, such as partners,
colleagues, or helpers, who have not contributed to
the research as a gesture of gratitude or favor,
leading to undeserved credit.
Salami slicing
Dividing a single research project into multiple
smaller publications, known as "slices," to
increase the number of publications without adding
substantial new findings. This practice can lead to
redundant publications and fragmented dissemination
of research results.

18. Identification of Publication Misconduct
Identifying publication misconduct involves vigilant scrutiny by various
stakeholders, including journal editors, peer reviewers, and the research
community at large. Here are some common methods for identifying misconduct:
• Plagiarism detection software: Editors often use specialized software to
detect instances of plagiarism by comparing submitted manuscripts against
a vast database of published works.
• Peer review: Peers reviewing a manuscript may identify suspicious
patterns, inconsistencies, or deviations from ethical guidelines.
• Whistle-blower reports: Concerned individuals may report suspected
misconduct to journal editors or relevant authorities.
• Post-publication scrutiny: After publication, readers may identify issues
and bring them to the attention of journal editors or the institution
where the research was conducted.

19. Handling Complaints
When allegations of publication misconduct arise, it's essential to have clear
procedures in place for handling complaints. This process should be fair,
transparent, and impartial. Key steps in handling complaints include:
• Receipt and evaluation: Journal editors or institutional bodies responsible
for ethics may receive complaints and assess their validity. They may request
additional evidence or information from both the complainant and the accused.
• Investigation: If the complaint warrants further investigation, an
independent panel or committee may be convened to examine the evidence,
interview relevant parties, and make a determination regarding the alleged
misconduct.
• Resolution: Based on the findings of the investigation, the responsible body
may take appropriate actions, such as issuing corrections, retractions, or
sanctions against the individuals involved. The resolution should be
communicated transparently to all concerned parties.

20. Facilitating Appeals
It's essential to provide mechanisms for appeals to ensure procedural fairness
and accountability in the handling of misconduct allegations. Appeals processes
typically involve the following steps:
• Submission of appeal: Individuals dissatisfied with the outcome of a
misconduct investigation may submit an appeal to a higher authority, such as
an appeals committee or an ombudsman.
• Review of appeal: The appeals body will review the grounds for the appeal,
examine the evidence, and assess whether due process was followed during the
initial investigation.
• Decision: After careful consideration, the appeals body may uphold the
original decision, modify it, or recommend further actions. The decision of
the appeals body should be final and communicated to all parties involved.

21. Predatory Publishers and
Journals
Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarly standards, characterized by false information,
deviation from best practices, lack of transparency, and aggressive solicitation practices.
Characteristics of Predatory Journals:
• These journals often lack indexing in reputable databases, genuine peer review, and transparency.
• They may offer false impact factors, aggressive marketing, and fake editorial boards.

22. Shamsheer et al. 2014 proposed 13 characteristics to identify potential predatory journals.
S.No. Description
1. The scope of interest includes non-biomedical subjects alongside
biomedical topics.
2. The website contains spelling and grammar errors.
3. The images are distorted/fuzzy, intended to look like something they are
not, or which are unauthorized.
4. The homepage language targets authors.
5. The index Copernicus Value is promoted on the website.
6. Description of the manuscript handling process is lacking.
7. Manuscript are requested to be submitted via email.
8. Rapid publication is promised.
9. There is no retraction policy
10. Information on whether and how journal content will be digitally preserved
is absent.
11. The article processing/publication charge is very low(e.g., < 150 USD).
12. Journals claiming to be open access either retain copyright of published
research or fail to mention copyright.
13. The contact email address is non-professional and non-journal affiliated(