Download as PDF, PPTX
Lecture_14_RPE___PPT_PhD_by_C_Tandon.pdf.pdf
- 1. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 4 Case Exemplars COPE Practices on Complaints and Appeals REVIEWER’S / EDITOR’S AUTHOR’S AUTHORSHIP PLAGIARSIM PREDATORY JOURNALS 4
- 5. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 5 RECOGNISING POTENTIAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS, MANIPULATIONS, COMPLAINTS AND REDRESSALS Author’s Claims Plagiarism Predatory Journals Reviewer’s Details CRITICAL STEPS FOR IDENTIFICATION
- 6. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 12 FLOWCHART FOR IDENTIFYING FABRICATED DATA
- 13. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 13 Appeals Redressal Flowchart Changes in Authorship
- 14. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 15 Case Identification and resolution 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 16 Case Examples - Authors, Authorship Author displays bullying behaviour towards handling editor Case Identification and resolution 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. Suggestions - By Research Scholars and Student’s— Open for Discussion
- 17. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 17 Case Examples - Plagiarism Stolen article Case Identification and resolution 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. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 18 Case Examples - Predatory Journals • Withdrawal of accepted manuscript from predatory journal Case Identification and resolution 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. Suggestions - By Research Scholars and Student’s— Open for Discussion
- 19. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 19 Plagiarism Check/ Cyber Crimes
- 20. Amity Institute ofBiotechnology 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