Research and Publication Ethics in Science

Research and Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics: definition, introduction and importance
● Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME,
etc.
● Conflicts of interest
● Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical
behaviour and vice versa, types , Violation of publication ethics, authorship
and contributor ship
● Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals
● Predatory publishers and journals
Disclaimer: The Content of this presentation is taken from different
sources and organized. There are no copyrights reserved.

Scientific Knowledge
• The object of research is to extend human knowledge
beyond what is already known.
• But an individual’s knowledge enters the domain of science
only after it is presented to others in such a fashion that
they can independently judge its validity

Publication
• Publication is the final stage of research and therefore a responsibility for all
researchers.
• Scholarly publications are expected to provide a detailed and permanent record of
research.
• Because publications form the basis for both new research and the application of
findings, they can affect not only the research community but also, indirectly,
society at large.
• Researchers therefore have a responsibility to ensure that their publications are
honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced, and should avoid misleading,
selective or ambiguous reporting.
• Journal editors also have responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of the research
literature and these are set out in companion guidelines.

Flow diagram of review and publication process for a manuscript submitted to a journal
Peer Reviewed

Publishing includes:
• Publishing in peer-reviewed journals and books. UGC-CARE
(Consortium for Academic and Research Ethic
https://ugccare.unipune.ac.in/apps1/home/index
• Conference presentations (peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed)
and/or published in proceedings
• Posters presented at conferences
• Reports commissioned by external organizations
• Promotional reports and materials on research
• Articles in the popular press and other media
• Publication in web-based journals and project web sites

What is publishable….
• Journals like to publish papers that are going to be widely read and useful to
the readers
• Papers that report “original and significant” findings that are likely to be of
interest to a broad spectrum of its readers.
• Papers that are well organized and well written, with clear statements
regarding how the findings relate to and advance the understanding
/development of the subject
• Papers that are concise and yet complete in their presentation of the findings

On October 5, 2020, the paper “Discovery of iron-sensing bacterial riboswitches”
was published online in the NCB . The publication was announced in an NCBS press
release on October 6, 2020. Its listed authors were Siladitya Bandyopadhyay,
Susmitnarayan Chaudhury, Dolly Mehta and Arati Ramesh, the last of whom was
the group leader and is faculty at the NCBS. July 07, 2021 05:47 pm | Updated
05:47 pm IST - NEW DELHI The Hindu.
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, announcing a breakthrough in
the field of chemical biology, and published in the prestigious Nature
Chemical Biology (NCB), has been retracted as its key findings were
manipulated. NCBS lab retracts scientific paper after evidence of data
fraud (Image Manipulation).

Prof. CNR Rao, Bharat Ratna and Principle Advisor to Prime
Minister of India and 3 others in plagiarism row :
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/228708/cnr-rao-3-
others-plagiarism.html
“an overlap by oversight”

Chemistry Professor Accused of Plagiarizing More Than 70 Articles.
University Executive Council of the Sri Venkateswara University
banned their chemistry professor accused of plagiarizing not just one
or two research papers, but almost seventy of them. Almost all these
research papers were published between the years 2004 to 2007. The
institution banned the professor from taking any research guidance
along with the upcoming examination works.
(Source:https://www.chronicle.com/article/indian-chemist-is-found-to-have-
plagiarized-and-falsified-articles/)
Retracted papers or publications

Stanford University Wrote to Late President Apj Abdul Kalam About Prof. B S
Rajput’s Plagiarism.
In the year 2002, in October, Late President APJ Abdul Kalam received a letter from
Stanford University. The letter claimed that physicist; Prof. B S Rajput has blatantly
copied from other sources. One of the signatories of this letter was Renata Kallosh.
She claimed that an entire research paper of hers has been used without her
acknowledgment. Stanford was shocked by the fact the person who committed the
heinous act was not punished. During this time, Prof. Rajput was the Vice-
Chancellor of Kumaon University.
However, after the investigation and after the completion of the investigation, Prof.
Rajput has to resign from his post.
(Source: https://thewire.in/education/in-india-you-can-plagiarize-and-flourish)

Kavya Viswanathan Was Accused of Plagiarism for Her Debut Novel. Harvard
student came up with her debut novel, “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild
and Got a Life,” only to face a severe accusation of plagiarism. Scholars accuse her
of lifting sections from “Sloppy First and Second Helpings,” written by Megan
McCafferty. In the year 2006, in Harvard Crimson, the university newsletter there
was the publication of the lifting details.
Now, the charges almost ended the career of this author. However, according to
her, those similarities were unintentional. None believed her. Her contracts for the
few other books were called off and the movie deals that she made.
(Source:https://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/books/features/5-authors-who-have-been-accused-
of-plagiarism/amp_articleshow/58593060.cms)

Plagiarism Accusation Against Dr. Sangiliyandi Gurunathan
and his Group.
The Nov/Dec 2010 edition of the Biotechnology Advances
journal brought out a notice that accused Dr. Sangiliyandi
Gurunathan and his group of plagiarizing an article on
“Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology,” Kalasalingam
University. The accusation led to the retraction of the paper
from the journal.
(Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_India)

It is all over the world (Ratio is 2/10000)
Science

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not a legal offence in india but a violation of moral
and ethical norms unlike copyright violation.
But let’s get this clear: copyright infringement can still occur even
if the source, author, or copyright-holder is cited.
It all depends on the context.

Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete
and marathon runner in excellent
health. Eight months ago, he
began taking Vioxx.
Case Study

Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete
and marathon runner in excellent
health. Eight months ago, he
began taking Vioxx.
Suddenly, he drops dead of a
massive heart attack, which is
ruled an arrhythmia by the
coroner. Robert had no prior
history of heart trouble.
Case Study

Robert is a 59-year-old triathlete and marathon
runner in excellent health. Eight months ago, he
began taking Vioxx.
Suddenly, he drops dead of a massive heart attack,
which is ruled an arrhythmia by the coroner. Robert
had no prior history of heart trouble.
Case Study

Publication ethics:
definition, introduction and importance
• “Greek ethos ‘character’ is the systematic study of value concepts—good, bad,
right, wrong and the general principles that justify applying these concepts”.
• Ethics is the disciplined study or morality….and morality asks the question…what
should one’s behavior be”.
• Morality refers to a code of conduct that is accepted by anyone who meets
certain intellectual and volitional conditions, including the condition of being
rational.
• Publication ethics is a standard of conducts that guides the researcher to act
responsibly and follow set of guidelines for publishing their research.
• Aim of research publications is to add to existing knowledge for the betterment
of society.
• Unethical practice in research to meet peer pressure/promotion etc. publication
pressure etc.
• So Research Ethics / Publication Ethics in Simple terms “do’s and don’ts” in
Science.

• Establish the credibility of a researcher and the output
• Addition in the existing knowledge
• Real benefits to the society and
• Research satisfaction
Why is this so important?

Basically, there are two types of ethics
Descriptive Ethics: which asks
• What does the culture or society believe is morally correct?
Prescriptive Ethics: Which asks:
• How should I behave as a researcher?
• What character traits should I cultivate?

What does this have to do with research?
Ethics is about creating a mutually respectful relationship
with the research population.
An ethically insensitive researcher can leave the research
setting in pandemonium/ Chaos
the researcher
the institution
the cause that he/she seeks to promote

Misleading
Inconclusive
Biased
• Scientists involved in the intense and demanding
enterprise of research…often overlook the interests and
perspectives of the research subject.
• Subjects may respond with lies and subterfuge.
Failure to treat subjects with respect can result
in data that is:

Research Ethics
Six Norms of Scientific Research
Valid research design – takes into account relevant theory, methods, and prior
findings.
Competence of researcher – capable to carry out the procedures.
Identification of consequences – assessment of risks and benefits (maximizing
benefit and minimizing risk).
Selection of subjects – appropriate to the purposes of the study, representative
of the population that will benefit from the research and appropriate in number.
Voluntary informed consent – obtained before study begins, without undue
threat or inducement, with enough information, and agreement to participate.
Compensation for injury – responsibility for what happens to the subject
(federal law requires that subjects be informed about compensation, but does
not require compensation).

“The public’s perception of research,
its benefits and its risks is shaped by
the way research is conducted”.
Dunn & Chadwick, 1999

Case Study
A graduate student plans to compare drug use among college freshers and
seniors.
Because she may want to reinterview some subjects later, she plans to write
their names and phone numbers on their data sheets.
She plans to promise confidentiality, so that subjects will trust her, and to
keep the data in her dorm room in a locked file.

Reasons for Unethical research
• Peer pressure
• Inadequate training or improper guidance and supervision
• Lack of awareness
• Difficulty on data collection

Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and
guidelines: COPE, WAME, etc.

• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),
• the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),
• the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and
• the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organizations that have
collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly
publications. This is the fourth version of a work in progress (published September 15,
2022).
• The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing should
apply to all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings.
• Any deviation from the standards outlined, editors must transparently communicate the
procedures that the journal follows.
• Publishers and editors are also responsible for promoting accessibility, diversity, equity, and
inclusivity in all aspects of the publication.
• Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit. They should not be affected by the
origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race,
or religion of the authors.
• Journals should ensure no policies create an exclusionary environment for anyone wanting
to engage with the journal and should regularly assess their policies for inclusivity.

• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a forum for editors of peer-reviewed journals to
discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record. It supports and encourages editors to
report, catalogue and instigate investigations into ethical problems in the publication process.
• Enlisting journals in COPE ensures that journal editors have an alternative source to refer to when
dealing with publishing ethics issues.
• History:
• COPE was founded in 1997 by a group of medical journal editors Originally a loose gathering of
individuals COPE is now a limited company ("incorporated") and registered charity ("not-for-profit
organisation").
• Role:
• When a complaint is raised, COPE does not attempt to investigate, nor to offer judgment on, the
rights or wrongs of specific allegations of research or publication misconduct. COPE’s investigations
and reports are therefore focused solely on whether the journals involved behaved according to
the COPE code of conduct and best practice guidelines for editors.
• Cases:
• COPE members can bring cases to the quarterly COPE Forum for advice. The COPE Forum meets
in London, UK and is open to members and appropriate guests. Invitations and minutes (including
advice and follow-up information on all cases discussed) are circulated to all COPE members.
• Members who are signed in, are invited to submit a case in advance, which are anonymised before
circulation and then discussed during the Forum, with advice given on appropriate action.
• All cases submitted to the Forum (suitably anonymised and without any information about the
submitting journal) are entered into the Database.

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ, http://www.doaj.org/)
The mission of the DOAJ is: to curate, maintain and develop a source of reliable information
about open access scholarly journals on the web; to verify that entries on the list comply with
reasonable standards;
-to increase the visibility, dissemination, discoverability and attraction of open access journals;
-to enable scholars, libraries, universities, research funders and other stakeholders to benefit
from the information and services provided;
-to facilitate the integration of open access journals into library and aggregator services;
-to assist, where possible, publishers and their journals to meet reasonable digital publishing
standards; and
-to thereby support the transition of the system of scholarly communication and publishing into
a model that serves science, higher education, industry, innovation, societies and the people.
About the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA, http://oaspa.org/)
The OASPA is a trade association that was established in 2008 in order to represent the
interests of Open Access (OA) publishers globally in all scientific, technical and scholarly
disciplines. This mission will be carried out through exchanging information, setting standards,
advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of innovation.

WAME is a global nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster
cooperation and communication among editors; improve editorial standards; promote professionalism in medical
editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation; and encourage research on the principles and practice of
medical editing. Principles of Transparency
• Peer review process: Journal content must be clearly marked as whether peer reviewed or not.
• Governing body: Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies. The full names and affiliations
of the journal’s editors shall be provided on the journal’s Web site.
• Editorial team/contact information: Journals shall provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors
on the journal’s Web site as well as contact information for the editorial office.
• Author fees: Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the
journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting their
manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission.
• Copyright: Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing
terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs.
• Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors
shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has
occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case
shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.—the
publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.

• Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the
journal’s Web site.
• Web site: A journal’s Web site shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards. It must
not contain misleading information, including any attempt to mimic another journal/publisher’s site.
• Name of journal: The journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with another journal or that might mislead
potential authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other journals.
• Conflicts of interest: A journal shall have clear policies on handling potential conflicts of interest of editors, authors, and reviewers
and the policies should be clearly stated.
• Access: The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are available to readers and whether there are associated
subscription or pay per view fees shall be stated.
• Revenue sources: Business models or revenue sources (eg, author fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support,
and organizational support) shall be clearly stated on the journal’s Web site.
• Advertising: Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant, including what types of ads will be considered, who makes
decisions regarding accepting ads and whether they are linked to content or reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at
random.
• Publishing schedule: The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be clearly indicated.
• Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content (for example, access to main
articles via CLOCKSS or PubMed Central) in the event a journal is no longer published shall be clearly indicated.
• Direct marketing: Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal,
shall be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive.

Violation if any….
In the event that a member organization is found to have violated
these best practices, or other specific requirements of the
organization, OASPA/DOAJ/COPE/WAME shall in the first
instance try to work with them in order to address any concerns
that have been raised.
In the event that the member organization is unable or unwilling
to address these concerns, their membership in the organization
may be suspended or terminated.
All of the member organizations have procedures for dealing with
concerns raised about member journals.

Springer
• Publication ethics
• Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings,
and that people receive credit for their ideas. It is important to avoid:
• Data fabrication and falsification:
• Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but faked the data. Data falsification means the
researcher did the experiment, but then changed some of the data.
• Plagiarism:
• Taking the ideas and work of other scientists without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one
sentence from someone else’s manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper
citation is considered plagiarism—use your own words instead.
• Multiple submissions:
• It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of
editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of the authors and the journals if published in more than
one journal as the later publication will have to be retracted.
• Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications):
• This means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one
very robust paper is more likely to be of interest to a selective journal. Editors are likely to reject a weak paper that they
suspect is a result of salami slicing.
• Improper author contribution or attribution:
• All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all
its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory
technicians. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the paper. The International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors has detailed guidelines on authorship that are useful for scientists in all fields: International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
• Many journals have tools and processes in place to identify researchers that engage in unethical behavior. If you are

Willeys
• Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics
• Aims and scope
These guidelines present a further update to the Wiley publishing ethics guidelines first published in 2006 and
revised in 2014. Our aim for these guidelines remains to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a
summary of best practice guidance with respect to research integrity and publishing ethics from leading
organizations around the world.
• Our guidelines are written for researchers, in their various roles as editors, authors and peer reviewers; societies;
librarians; funders; corporations; publishers; and journalists.
•
In updating and expanding the guidelines, we worked with members of Wiley’s Integrity and Publishing Group (IPG)
with expertise in handling issues in research integrity and publishing ethics. We recognize that different disciplines
have different practices and that one size does not necessarily fit all. Where guidelines have particular application
to one discipline or group of disciplines, we have aimed to identify this clearly in the text. This version was
published on April 17, 2020. It was updated on December 14, 2020 to reflect updates to author name changes and
on June 30, 2021 to include a section on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and guidance for research on plants and
geological samples. A further update to guidance on corrections was added September 26, 2022.

COPE ; C O M M I T T E E O N P U B L I C A T I O N E
T H I C S
CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR
JOURNAL EDITORS
1. General duties and responsibilities of editors
• 1.1. Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals.
• This means the editors should
• 1.2. strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• 1.3. strive to constantly improve their journal;
• 1.4. have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
• 1.5. champion freedom of expression;
• 1.6. maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• 1.7. preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
• 1.8. always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include
• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
• working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible
behaviour and discourage misconduct
• ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

2. Relations with readers
• 2.1. Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and
whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include:
• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified
reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting
including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. MIAME,1
CONSORT2)
• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the origin of
non-research articles
• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. listings accurately
who did the work and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff
or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

3. Relations with authors
3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and
clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
3.2. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the
submission.
3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious
problems are identified.
3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important
deviation from the described processes.
3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them.
• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
• competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions
• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and
practicable
• being guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

4. Relations with reviewers
• 4.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted
material in confidence.
• 4.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
• 4.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system
that is declared to authors and reviewers.
• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions
(e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals),
inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
• encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

5.Relations with editorial board members
• 5.1. Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is
expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased
review
• identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the
development and good management of the journal
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
6. Relations with journal owners and publishers
• 6.1. The relationship of editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should be based
firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
• 6.2. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for
the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher.
• 6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner
and/or publisher.
• 6.4. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editor

7. Editorial and peer review processes
• 7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely.
• 7.2. Editors should ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under
review.
• ensuring that people involved with the editorial process receive adequate training and keep abreast
of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal
management
• adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
• reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
• referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the
COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
8. Quality assurance
• 8.1. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish,
recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
• Best practice for editors would include:
• systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or
plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
• adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT2 rather than simply on
aesthetic grounds or personal preference

9. Protecting individual data
9.1. Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction.
• Protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and
patients).
• It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be
identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs).
• May Publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to
obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
• publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors
10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans
or animals)
• 10.1. Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted
guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research).
• 10.2. Editors should seek. research ethics committee, institutional review board assurances that all research has been approved by an
appropriate body (e.g) where one exists. However, editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is
ethical.
• being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research
participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are
needed
• ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki8, Good Clinical Practice

11. Dealing with possible misconduct
11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and
unpublished papers.
11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
11.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
11.4. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant
employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen,
editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
12.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions15.
• taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
• ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)
• having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available
13. Intellectual property
13.1. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual
property laws and conventions.
• adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when
suspicions are raised)
• supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
• being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or
removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

Conflicts of interest
17.1. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their
staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
17.2. Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees
or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review
• publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and
members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)

INTRODUCTION
• A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal interests-family,
friendships, financial, or social factors-could compromise his or her judgement,
decisions, or actions in the workplace.
• Conflict of interest is common issue in the workplace. Most of us have heard
someone say, It’s who you know.’’
• Conflict of interest are a clash occurs between requirements and interests.
• Various type of conflict of interest can occur because of nature of relationships
versus rules of organisation or federal and state laws.
• Conflict of interest is both a straightforward and a complex matter.
• Six principles of conflict resolution; affiliate, empathize , engage, own, self-
restrain and build trust.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS
• An important aspect of conflict of interest is that it’s self-serving.
• It involves someone prioritizing their interests and gains over others. Someone
who’s self-serving overlooks every other aspect of a situation and makes a
decision for the sole purpose of personal gain.
• Difference of Opinion: A conflict generally arises in situation where there are
opposing views
• Competing loyalties when you have an invested interest in many places because
the employee can misuse important information any one of organisation.
• When your personal interests overshadow the interests of the organisation, it
results in a conflict.
• Unethical practice may arise conflict of interest

Some common situations:
• Hiring an unqualified friend or relative to fill a position
instead of most qualified candidate.
• Preferentially awarding a government contract to known
organisation.
• Performing part-time for a competitor organisation.
• A famous conflict of interest took place in1967 when a
group of Harvard scientists were paid to publish a paper
that minimised the relationship between heart health and
sugar consumption.

CAUSES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Two categories;
• Pecuniary interest-( potential or actual financial gain)
• Non-Pecuniary interest-(family or personal involvement)
Identifying types of conflicts of interest
Actual conflict of interest
Perceived conflict of interest
Potential conflict of interest
TYPES

CURRENT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
INVESTIGATORS
A standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording,
analyses, and reporting of clinical trials. That provides assurance that the data and
reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality
of study subjects are protected.
Investigators will collect evidence, search, interview, interrogate and apply various
investigation methods. The successful candidate will be able to employ modern scientific
techniques in order to determine and illuminate the truth about how a crime occurred.
An ethical investigator will avoid the use of any and all illegal means in conducting an
investigation or any aspect of an investigation. Any and all procedures which violate the
rights of the individual will be strictly abhorred. The ethical investigator will also strictly
avoid such practices.

INVESTIGATOR RESPONSEIBILITIES
Record keeping and retention
An investigator is responsible for
 Maintaining adequate records
 Accurate case history that records all
observation
 Other data to investigate individual

MANAGING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• Managing conflict of interest requires a balance prohibiting unacceptable forms of
private interest.
• Raising awareness of the circumstances in which conflicts can arise.
• Building capacities to prevent conflict of interest through training.
• Ensuring effective procedures to resolve conflict-of-interest situations.
5 conflict management strategies
According to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), used by human
resource (HR) professionals around the world, there are five major styles of conflict
management;
• Collaborating
• Competing
• Avoiding
• Accommodating
• Compromising

7 Steps to Conflict Resolution
• Set a Discussion Time
• Invite a Third Party
• Figure Out the Main Issue
• Establish Common Goals
• Discuss how to Meet Goals
• Agree on a Way Forward
• Determine Resolution Roles

To Sum- up
• Conflict of interest is a complicated ethical and professionalism area.
• The advent of the Internet and digital technology has magnified how
complicated it is.
• The first step is awareness of the issue and the ability to identify potential
conflicts.
• If health-care professionals are going to express a professional opinion
online or advocate for any cause, including own financial gain, we need to
identify ourselves and our professional role.
• In the years to come, health-care and academic medical institutions are
likely to develop guidelines for the appropriate use of the Internet in this
regard.

Publication misconduct
• Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to
unethical behaviour and vice versa, types

I’m a good person. Why do I need to worry about research ethics?
65

• It’s true that we can’t do much about the bad person who is determined to do evil things.
• However, research ethics isn’t just – or even mostly - about bad people doing bad things.
• It’s also about imperfect people doing imperfect things, for a variety of reasons.
66

Professional Pressures :
• Publish or perish
• Tenure/retaining a job
• “Keeping up” with
peers
• Securing grants
• Being first to a
discovery
67

Publication misconduct
Publishing should not become an end process of research but it
makes a positive impact in the development of knowledge.
Any unethical behavior relating to the publishing is called publishing
misconduct.
68

• Plagiarism
• Fabrication
• Falsification
• Inappropriate authorship
• Duplicate submission/multiple submissions
• Overlapping publication
• Salami publication
Publication misconduct includes:
69

•Publication misconduct makes all the efforts, time and money spent on
research in vane and leads to detrimental effects with a high possibility of
not repairable damages in the research world.
•If research was done wholeheartedly with academic honesty, it would
lead to development of world as well as knowledge accumulation. 70

•Mostly societal issues demand most immediate and
honest research outputs which are not met by plagiarised
research publications and leads to loss of trust and
confidence in the science community.
•When the course syllabus is concerned many of the
educational courses are compelling students to publish
articles during courses and may follow unscientific
methods of publishing and are becoming victims of
publication misconduct for the whole life.
71

1. Plagiarism
• Plagiarism is one of the most dangerous misconducts in
research.
• It is the adoption of another person's thoughts, ideas, data,
figures, research methods, or words without giving proper
credit to the work, or the over-citation of another person's
published work.
72

There are different types of plagiarism :
Direct plagiarism
73

 Mosaic Plagiarism
Poorly paraphrases a statement , but there work has a
similar sentence structure to the original work
75

2. Fabrication:
Without properly performing the research work, if a researcher is
manipulating the data and result, it is called fabrication.
It will mislead the readers about the findings.
77

3.Falsification: Falsification is the practice of changing data or results intentionally
such that a misleading conclusion is drawn. It is the changing or omission of research
results to support claims, hypotheses, and other data. it includes the manipulation of
research instrumentation, materials, or processes.
78

4.Duplicate submission/multiple submissions: It refers to the practice of submitting the
same manuscript or several manuscripts with minor differences (e.g., differences only in
title, keywords, abstract, author order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two
or more journals at the same time, or submitting to another journal within an agreed or
stipulated period.
79

5.Overlapping publication:
Overlapping publication refers to the practice of publishing a paper
that overlaps substantially with one already published.
80

6.Salami publication: Salami publication refers to the practice of
slicing data from a large study, could have been reported in a
single paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or
more articles, all of which cover the same population, methods,
and question
81

7.Redundant Publication: It is the publication of a paper which is similar
to a published paper by the same author. He does this without
acknowledging the source. It is an example of ‘poor scholarship’ and the
study contributes very less. It is turned to be a wastage to the editor and
reviewer in every way.
82

8.Gift authorship
• The main author or first author creates the idea, plans, carry outs the
work and writes the paper.
• Gift authors are the ones which are included as co-authors but not have
significantly or not at all contributed to the work presented in the paper.
• This may be done in order to get grants, sponsors, good grades etc.
• Sometimes these may be your senior colleagues, supervisors or heads of
the departments.
• In the era of “publish or perish”, under the pressure of increasing the
count of publication these influential people get themselves listed as co-
authors.
83

9.Ghost Authorship
Ghost author means the one who has participated in the
study, analysis, experimentation and even in publication
draft writing but are not named under the author list.
Especially this occurs in case the ghost author is your
junior colleague who contributed in all aspects till
publication but he is neither listed in the author list nor
in the acknowledgement.
84

10.Citation manipulation
Many times authors include the citations whose mere
purpose is to increase number of citations to the given
author’s work.
Author should also refrain themselves from excessive
citing of their own previous work or their friends,
colleague’s or institution’s publications if they have not
actually read.
Researchers must also avoid copying the references
from other publications if they have not gone through
the cited work. 85

Lack of awareness about research and
publication ethics
Pressure for publication
Financial enticement to compromise integrity
Wish for massive curriculum vitae
Academic advancement and promotion
Professional supremacy
Competition among the colleagues
Reason of Publication Misconduct
86

Consequence of Publication Misconduct
 It could lead to the end of career as a
researcher. He may be dismissed and rejected.
 Academic achievement may be taken away.
 It means a huge loss of fund, time,
reputation to the editor and reviewer as well
as the researcher.
 Destroy the public trust on researchers
because people in general have lot of faith on
the researchers.
87

STEPS TO AVOID PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT
Provide academic freedom
 Follow ethical principles
 Self-certification of articles should be made when they are
submitting for publication.
Report of plagiarism checking software should be made
compulsory.
 Authors of different articles should keep their publications
on institutional repositories.
 Do not give unnecessary focus on Publishing and journal
impact factors
88

Editors should
Ensure the quality of published material
Publish descriptions of peer review and appeals
processes
Publish corrections and apologies where necessary
Retract fraudulent or erroneous articles
Ensure research articles conform to ethical
guidelines
Maintain confidentiality of submitted material
Keep editorial and commercial decisions separate
Declare their own and other people's conflicts of
interest
Deal properly with complaints
Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that
allegations of misconduct are properly investigated
89

Reviewer should:
• Not “use” data / ideas reported in the manuscript
• Not communicate directly with authors
• Provide an honest, critical assessment
• Provide specific suggestions for improvement
• Always avoid any conflict of interest (if in doubt,
consult with the editor)
• Help the editors reach a decision on a paper:
•by recommending Accept / (minor/major) Revision /
Reject.
• (Keep in mind: the reviewer recommends, the
editor decides!)
•by writing a reviewer report for authors that is in line
with the recommendation to the editor
• Only accept manuscripts for review….
•in your area of expertise
•when you can complete the review on time 90

Sum up
Publication of research work is very much important.
The published work helps the young researchers to enrich their
knowledge .
They gather information from that .But there is research ethics .
All researchers must be aware of that standard procedure to avoid
publication misconduct .
As discussed researchers are found guilty and they have been
deregistered and their papers are being retracted.
The misconducts have immense impact. So Govt. and Research
Institutes must enforce effective policies to guide research studies
across the world
91

Identification of Publication Misconduct,
Complaints and Appeals
92

Publication Misconduct
Scientific misconduct...is a continuum ranging from honest errors to
outright fraud.
93

Types of misconduct
1.) Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data, figures, research
methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or the over-citation of another person's
published work.
2.) Fabrication: The practice of making up data or results without having performed relevant
research.
3.) Falsification: The practice of changing data or results intentionally such that misleading
conclusion is drawn.
4.) Inappropriate authorship: Authorship is not appropriately assigned based on the author's
contributions.
5.) Duplicate submission/multiple submissions: submitting the same manuscript or several
manuscripts with minor differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract, author
order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two or more journals at the same time.
6.) Overlapping publication: The practice of publishing a paper overlaps substantially with one
already published.
7.) Salami publication: slicing data from a large study, could have been reported in a single
paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or more articles, all of which cover the
same population, methods, and question. 94

What is Complaints?
• Any type of unhappiness or dissatisfaction regarding the publication
and policies of the journal.
• May due to long delay in publication and replies.
• May be about the decision of editorial board members or chief editor
regarding the manuscript of the author.
• Rude response or misjudgment of the editorial board.
96

Complaints & Appeals
• The authors have right to complaint and ask explanation if they
perceived any misconduct in any applicable policies and ethical
guidelines.
• The rejection of a paper the author may appeal to the editor.
• Authors have the right to appeal an editor’s decision on the article.
• All appeals are sent to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who will assess
your article and the details of the peer review process before the final
decision.
97

Type Of Complaints
Complaints about plagiarism
98
Duplicate publication or submitting
the article to various journal
Research result misappropriation
Complaints regarding the research
errors and fraud
Violation of research standards
Conflicts of interest
Bias behavior of reviewers
no informed consent on
human subjects, or
that animal protection
protocols

Appeals
Appeals are considered against the editor’s decision only under highly
specific circumstances and usually only where a clear breach of policy
can be demonstrated.
99
How to make a Complaint?
• Complaints are generally dealt by the editorial staff wherever possible,
with reference to policies and guideline, but can escalated to the
Editors where necessary.
• Editor has the right to consult third party over the issue and make
final decision.

Appeals Process
• Any appeals against the Editors decision must be made by e mail
within two weeks of decision.
• Detail explanation of disagreement and supporting information.
• Appeal is acknowledged within five working days
• The appeal is handled by the editor who is not in original decision
• The handling editor make recommendation to reject the appeal, or
uphold the appeal aim to resolve within four weeks.
• The editors decision is final and will not considered further on same
ground.
102

PREDATORY PUBLISHERS AND JOURNALS

WHAT IS PREDATORY PUBLISHER ?
“ A predatory publisher is an opportunistic publishing venue that exploits the
academic need to publish but offers little reward for those using their
services”.
Predatory Publisher

What is a predatory journal ?
 “A predatory journal is a publication that asks to a researchers for
manuscripts .“
 They have no paper review system and no true editorial board.
 They generally found to publish worthless papers.
 They also ask for huge publication charge

Goals of Predator Publishers
1.
• They do not care about the quality of the
work published (i.e. little editing or peer-review).
2.
• They make false claims or promises (i.e. claims of
impact factors and indexing).
3.
• They engage in unethical business practices (i.e.
not as advertised).

What should we do ?
Are you
Submitting your research to a
Trusted journals ?

Think !
Because
Publishing our research results is key to advancing our discipline and
our career……..But there are so many journals in our field, how can
we sure that we are choosing a reputable journals ?

Conformed your Publication & Journals
You should follow the three steps to conformation of your Publication and
Journals……
Think…
!
Check…
Submit
Tips to conform a
journals credentials
and decide if It will
help you to reach
the right audience
with your research
and make an impact
on your career.

THINK…
!
Are you submitting your research to
a trusted journals? Is it right journal
for your work?
 New journals are launched each weak.
 More research is being published worldwide.
 Stories of publisher malpractice and deception are also on the rise.
 It can be challenging to find up-to-date guidance when choosing
where to publish.
 How can you be sure the journal you are choosing is the right
journals for your research?

Check
…
Reference this list for your
chosen journal to check if it
is trusted.
 Have you read any articles in the journals in which you are going
to submit your research
 Is it easy to discover the latest papers in the journals ?
 Can you easily identify and contact the publisher ?
 Is the journals clear about the types of peer review it uses?
 Have you heard of the editorial board members?
 Do the editorial board mention the journal on their own websites?
 Is it clear what fee will be charged?
 And does the journal site explain their fees and when they will be
charged?

Submit
If you can answer “YES” to
most of the questions on the
list….
If you get answer “YES” Than…
 Complete the check list and submit your article only if
you are happy you can answer ‘YES’ to most of the
questions.
 You need to be confident your chosen journal will have
to suitable among your peers to enhance your reputation
and your chance of gaining citations.
Publishing in the right journals for your research will raise
your professional profile, and help you progress in your
career.

Main Publication Houses
• Springer Nature
• Elsevier
• Wiley
• Oxford
• Sage
• Frontiers (Open Access)
• PlosOne
• Society Journals

Research Metrics
Journal Impact Factor
• Research metrics are measures used to quantify the influence or impact of scholarly work.
• Some examples of this are bibliometrics (methods to analyze and track scholarly literature),
citation analysis, and altmetrics (a more recent set of alternative methods that attempt to track and
analyze scholarship through various digital media.)
• The development of electronic indexes, Science Citation Index (1963) and Social Sciences
Citation Index (1973), that traced citations to scholarly articles led to an offshoot database, Journal
Citation Reports (1975), that displayed the journal impact factor.
• The journal impact factor is a widely used research metric though its use is often criticized.

h-Index
• [Jorge Hirsch]
• Jorge Hirsch in 2005 published a methodology called the h-index as a citation-based
measure of a scholars total output.
This has become a required measure in some fields.
• For example, if an author has five publications, with 9, 7, 6, 2, and 1 citations (ordered
from greatest to least), then the author's h-index is 3, because the author has three
publications with 3 or more citations.
However, the author does not have four publications with 4 or more citations

g-Index • The g-index is an author-level metric suggested in 2006 by Leo Egghe. • The
index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's
publications, such that given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of
citations that they received, the g- index is the unique largest number such that the top g
articles received together at least g2 citations. • Hence, a g-index of 10 indicates that the top
10 publications of an author have been cited at least 100 times (102), a g-index of 20
indicates that the top 20 publications of an author have been cited 400 times (202).

i10-index • The i10-index indicates the number of academic publications an author has
written that have been cited by at least 10 sources. • It was introduced in July 2011 by
Google as part of their work on Google Scholar.

Research Profile • ORCID, which stands for Open Researcher and Contributor ID, is a global,
not-for-profit organization • https://info.orcid.org/benefits-for-researchers/

Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer- reviewed literature: scientific
journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the
world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and
arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyze and visualize research. •
https://www.scopus.com/freelookup/form/author.uri • https://www.researcherid.com/#rid-
for-researchers

Research and Publication Ethics in Science

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Research and Publication Ethics in Science

Recently uploaded

Research and Publication Ethics in Science