Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf

Amity Institute of Biotechnology
1
Topic of Discourse - Identification of
Publication misconduct, Complaints and
Appeals
Programme - Doctoral of Philosophy
Semester - 1st
Course - Research and Publication Ethics
Prof. Dr. Chanderdeep Tandon
HOI, Amity Institute of Biotechnology
Dean, Biosciences and Biotechnology

2
Core
Practices
Community Of Publication Ethics (COPE) -
Structuring Ethics in Publication
• Allegations of misconduct
• Authorship and contributorship
• Complaints and appeals
• Conflicts of interest / Competing interests
• Data and reproducibility
• Ethical oversight
• Intellectual property
• Journal management
• Peer review processes

3
COPE Practices and Processes
Process
• Allegations of
misconduct
• Authorship and
contributorship
• Complaints and appeals
• Conflicts of interest /
Competing interests
• Data and reproducibility
• Ethical oversight
• Intellectual property
• Journal management
• Peer review processes
• Post-publication
discussions and
corrections
PROCESSES
• Published process for handling misconduct redressal
• Clear Transparent Publishing Policy in terms of contribution
• Description of processes for addressing complaints against journal, staff, editorial
board or publisher
• Clear define process for Conflict of Interest (Authors, Reviewer’s, Editors,
Journal’s & Publishers)
• Reporting guidelines, study designs and data availability
• Ethical consent (for Publication, Conduct of research, Handling confidential data)
• Policy Declaration (Copyright, Publication cost, Publishing licences and Plagiarism)
• Journal Model Explanation (Business model, Policies, Processes, Software, Editorial
Board and Publishing Staff)
• Description of peer review model process and practice, training for editor and
reviewers, handling misconduct
• Functional debate on post publication revisions, retraction, moderation either
internally or through external moderated sites like PubPeer

4
Case Exemplars
COPE Practices on Complaints and Appeals
REVIEWER’S /
EDITOR’S
AUTHOR’S
AUTHORSHIP
PLAGIARSIM
PREDATORY
JOURNALS
4

5
RECOGNISING
POTENTIAL PEER
REVIEW PROCESS,
MANIPULATIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND
REDRESSALS
Author’s
Claims
Plagiarism
Predatory
Journals
Reviewer’s
Details
CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION

RECOGNISING
POTENTIAL PEER
REVIEW PROCESS,
MANIPULATIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND
REDRESSALS
Reviewer’s
Details
Reviewer work in unrelated
subject of the manuscript
Review that is vague in style
not reflecting Seniority,
experience or educational
background of reviewer
Agreeing to review many
manuscripts / Third party
involvement
Complimentary or Positive
review in strong contrast
to other reviewers/ only
pointing grammatical
mistake
Suspicious email address/ Non -
Institutional Email Address for
reviewer/ Fictitious name
CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION - Patterns of Reviewer/ Editor Activity
Editor and reviewers
requiring authors to cite
their own work
Review returned well
before deadline /
Reviewer never
recommends rejection
Editor found
guilty of research
misconduct
Confidentiality breach
by an associate editor
Case
Examples
Patterns of
Reviewer / Editor

7
RECOGNISING
POTENTIAL PEER
REVIEW PROCESS,
MANIPULATIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND
REDRESSALS
Author’s
Claims
Data manipulation and
institute’s internal
Lead author of a
research paper disagrees
with content of a linked
editorial
Unhelpful institution
report
Author displays
bullying behaviour
towards handling
CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION - Patterns of Author’s Claims
Authorship dispute and
possible unreported
Authorship dispute
nsatisfactorily resolved by
institution
Authorship issues from
disbanded consortium
Multiple redundant
submissions from the
same author
Author impersonating
corresponding author
without knowledge of
coauthors
Institutional
investigation of
authorship dispute
Case
Examples
Patterns of Author’s

8
RECOGNISING
POTENTIAL PEER
REVIEW PROCESS,
MANIPULATIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND
REDRESSALS
Plagiarism
Is it plagiarism to use text
verbatim from a manuscript
review?
Stolen article
CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION - Plagiarism
Possible overlapping
publications/data
Reprimanded author
plagiarizes again
Author accused of stealing
research and publishing
under their name
Multiple redundant
submissions from the same
Paper B plagiarised paper
A: what to do if a journal
does not respond?
Submission of an
already published
case report
Suspected
unattributed text in
a published article
8
Suspected image
manipulation involving four
journals
Case Examples Plagiarism Patterns

9
RECOGNISING
POTENTIAL PEER
REVIEW PROCESS,
MANIPULATIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND
REDRESSALS
Predatory
Journals
Retraction of the first
article in the case of
duplicate publication
Suspicious
contact details of
reviewer’s
CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION - Predatory Journals
Similarity to other
peer reviewer
reports
No Revisions / never
recommends
rejection
Possible breach
of reviewer
Withdrawal of
accepted manuscript
from predatory
journal
Review returned
well before
deadline
9
Online posting of
confidential draft by
peer reviewer
Case
Examples
Journal
Features

10
Process flowchart for Suspected Peer Review
Manipulation
Peer Review Process Suspension -
Reviewer Details Suspicious
Verify Peer Reviewer at
organisation
Reviewer
Credential
Verification
Satisfactory
Explanation by
Reviewer - Report
accepted for review
Validation is not
clear; Thank and plan
to investigate
Contact the handling editor
who suggested the peer
reviewer and ask for
explanation
If Satisfactory, then
move forth review
process OR Reject
Manuscript
Explain to author and
author institution;
Reject Manuscript
Validation
through Author
and Institution
Satisfactory Explanation -
Manuscript continued to
peer review but invite
additional reviewer’s
Contact peer reviewer
for validating email
address
Can named reviewer
independently provide
details of the manuscript
they are reviewing
OR
FLOWCHART VARIOUS
PROCESSES DURING PEER
REVIEW PROCESS

11
Process flowchart for Suspected Peer Review
Manipulation
Peer Review Process Suspension -
Reviewer Details Suspicious
Verify Peer Reviewer at
organisation
Reviewer
Credential
Verification
Satisfactory
Explanation by all
Reviewer - Publication
Stands /
Unsatisfactory
Information - Start
Post publication
review
Validation is not
clear; Thank and plan
to investigate
Contact the handling editor
who suggested the peer
reviewer and ask for
explanation
If Satisfactory, then
Publication stands or
contact fresh
reviewer’s for post-
publication peer review
Explain to author and author
institution;
Consider Post publication
Corrections
Validation
through Author
and Institution
Satisfactory
Explanation - Thank
author and
Institution
Contact peer reviewer
confirm details of
manuscript
Can all named reviewer’s
independently provide
details of the manuscript
reviewed
OR
FLOWCHART - VARIOUS
PROCESSES AFTER PEER
REVIEW PROCESS

12
FLOWCHART FOR
IDENTIFYING
FABRICATED DATA

13
Appeals Redressal
Flowchart
Changes in
Authorship

Case Examples - Reviewer’s -
Sharing by a reviewer on social media
Case Identification and resolution
Case Number 20-04 - Journal operated double blinded peer review. Reviewer contacted journal to
add a Twitter note displaying him being reviewer to potential author’s
Question - Double blind peer review after publication and Whether to accept the social media
stance
Resolution - Ongoing - Reviewer information not to be displayed by Journal, though Author
information would be available after publication
Right of confidentiality lies with the reviewer, though due permission and information to be
acquired from Author’s.
Suggestions - By Research Scholars and Student’s— Open for Discussion

15
Case Number 18-03 - Journal staff noticed decision letter with handling editor instructing Author’s
to cite his work. This pattern was observed in more that 50 cases for the handling editor. Personal
ties with Reviewer’s for vested interests. e.g.https://www.editage.com/insights/elsevier-removes-
editor-from-board-after-revelations-of-citation-manipulation
Ethic Guidelines of COPE suggests this against editorial practice and when questioned by Chief-
Editor - said handling editor resigned citing unacceptable enquiry
Question - Any other action Journal could have taken differently
Concerned Reviewer’s should have been addressed too
How do journals ensure safeguard of such malpractices at editorial scales
Resolution - Completed - Educating their editor’s as done by the journal was commendable.
Forum suggested revision in guidelines that acceptance is not contingent on adding specific
references suggested by editors.
Review of letter’s being sent to Author’s to be monitored and implementing additional steps in the
submission process to prevent similar issues in the future. https://resource.wur.nl/en/show/WUR-
and-Elsevier-expose-citation-fraud.htm
Case Examples - Editor & Reviewer’s -
Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work

16
Case Examples - Authors, Authorship
Author displays bullying behaviour towards handling editor
Case Number 20-08 - Handling editor rejected a paper without review, after consultation with
senior editor. Corresponding author sent’s appeal for a second review, with similar decision like
first submission should include detailed response to number of questions and comments raised in
appeal letter. He also sent a social survey indicating the importance of manuscript as per journal
readership in comparison to another paper recently published in journal. After second rejection too,
Author continued bullying behaviour with threats of freedom of information.
Question - for the COPE Forum
• Did the journal handle the case appropriately?
• Could something else or something different have been done?
• How can this type of situation be prevented?
Resolution - Ongoing - Journal responded with decision detailing and copied it to the senior author
in the journal. The senior author responded by acknowledging the inappropriate behaviour of the
author and promising to take action internally.

17
Case Examples - Plagiarism
Stolen article
Case Number 17-15 - Journal A while acceptance observed Journal B (conference proceedings)
having overlapping details of the article with different Author affiliation. On Investigation found
that the article published 5 months back was leaked inadvertently to the medical company they
work with. Details further confirmed that Author’s of Journal A had originally submitted the work
to journal C , 4 years back and Author’s of journal B had retracted the article though citing errors in
submission. Authors of article A were advised to contact the Institution of Author’s B to investigate
the matter and withdraw the submission, and submit after resolution.
Question - • Could we have handled this case differently?
• Should we contact the publisher of article B?
• Should we ask the institution of the authors of article A and/or article B to investigate?
Resolution - Ongoing - Work from the article was further submitted by one of the Author A list to
another conference proceedings. This recalls unethical practice by the Author’s both A and B, that
without resolution of conflict of interests, scientific work is published. The Journal authority of A
now contacted all concerned for explanation. No information received by Institution / author’s
involved.

18
Case Examples - Predatory Journals
• Withdrawal of accepted manuscript from predatory journal
Case Number 16-22 - Author submits review article without realising that it is a predatory journal.
After acceptance and realisation of the fact, Author wants to retract the submission, but the journal
or editor gives no response. The article is reflected aberrantly under different issues of the journal
periodically. The author never signed a copyright agreement and never paid the journal to publish
the article. The author would like to have the manuscript published in a legitimate journal but
does not wish to be guilty of duplicate publication.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum - • What advice can be given to the author about submitting the
manuscript to a legitimate journal without the author being guilty of duplicate publication?
Resolution - Ongoing - The Forum noted that this case highlights the importance of
the Think.Check.Submit. initiative, which provides tools to help researchers identify trusted
journals for their research. Another suggestion was to threaten legal action—the predatory journal
may back down if legal action is threatened. Case Closed and Resolved after Predatory journal
agreed to take off the paper.

19
Plagiarism
Check/ Cyber
Crimes

20
Validation of data
Unsatisfactory
explanation
Copyright Form
Institutional Assessment
Connect to All Author’s
Rejection
Satisfactory
response
Plagiarism Check
Publication acceptance
Reviewer Admission
Retraction /
Withdrawal
Supplementary Data
Letter to Editor’s

Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf

Similar to Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf