Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey

Assessment criteria for research misconduct: Taiwanese researchers' perceptions

Assessing the severity of an instance of research misconduct is undoubtedly challenging, especially when the result of the assessment may be key to suggesting subsequent sanctions. However, only a few references are currently available in the Taiwanese academic context. In a previous study, the present authors developed The Assessment Criteria for Research Misconduct (The Criteria) based on existing international policies and guidelines and reviewed by local research scholars for content validity. The Criteria, with a total of 28 items, were organized into three sections: general criteria for determining case severity, aggravating criteria, and mitigating criteria. In the current study, the authors further conducted a survey and collected data on 277 Taiwanese researchers' perceived importance of each criterion included in The Criteria. The results showed that participants generally agreed with the importance of all criteria. However, the group that lacked case-handling experience attributed significantly greater levels of importance to the criterion of original will (proactive, passive, or coercive) toward participation in misconduct than did the experienced group. In addition, the participants exhibited greater variation in the perceived importance of the mitigating criteria. Finally, the possible utility of The Criteria in real contexts and training materials is suggested in the study.

Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Aims and Objectives

This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research.

Materials and Methods

A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: "scientific misconduct," "Publications," "plagiarism," and "authorship," and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package "metaphor."

Results

Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.

ETHICS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH AND PUBLISHING

This review aims to provide a concise argument on the importance of ethics in scientific endeavors. Consideration should be given to all aspects of a research project, including, study design, approval process, execution, and publication. In addition, parameters such as human roles in research and human rights are noted. Furthermore, critical questions such as confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficent research are emphasized. Apart from the significance of data analysis, the adverse consequences of unethical behaviors such as plagiarism, data falsification, and research bias are investigated.

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that—like all researchers—senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Background

Retractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded.

Results

Two-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted.

Conclusions

The rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x.

Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices

The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 06 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported.The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved.

Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

Background

Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process.

Methods

We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families.

Results

SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible.

Conclusions

Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4.

Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts

BACKGROUND

Scientists communicate progress and exchange information via publication and presentation at scientific meetings. We previously showed that text similarity analysis applied to Medline can identify and quantify plagiarism and duplicate publications in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. In the present study, we applied the same analysis to a large sample of conference abstracts.

METHODS

We downloaded 144,149 abstracts from 207 national and international meetings of 63 biomedical conferences. Pairwise comparisons were made using eTBLAST: a text similarity engine. A domain expert then reviewed random samples of highly similar abstracts (1500 total) to estimate the extent of text overlap and possible plagiarism.

RESULTS

Our main findings indicate that the vast majority of textual overlap occurred within the same meeting (2%) and between meetings of the same conference (3%), both of which were significantly higher than instances of plagiarism, which occurred in less than .5% of abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that textual overlap in abstracts of papers presented at scientific meetings is one-tenth that of peer-reviewed publications, yet the plagiarism rate is approximately the same as previously measured in peer-reviewed publications. This latter finding underscores a need for monitoring scientific meeting submissions - as is now done when submitting manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - to improve the integrity of scientific communications.

Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective.

RESULTS

Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.

Transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications: a survey of journal editors

Objective: To examine how medical journal editors perceive changes in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications over a 5 year period (2010 to 2015). Methods: From July to September 2015, a survey link was emailed to journal editors identified from the Thomson Reuters registry. Editors ranked their perception of: a) change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications; b) 8 "Publication Best Practices" and the impact of each on transparency; and c) the importance and adoption of the previously published "10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research". Results: Of 510 editors who opened the survey, the analysis pool comprised a total of 293 editors. The majority of respondents reported their location as the US (46%) or EU (45%) and most commonly reported editorial titles were deputy/assistant editor (36%), editor-in-chief (35%) and section editor (24%). More editors reported improved versus worsened transparency (63.5% vs. 6.1%) and credibility (53.2% vs. 10.4%). Best practices that contributed most to improved transparency were "disclosure of the study sponsor" and "registration and posting of trial results". Respondents ranked the importance of nine recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate. Conclusions: The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in the transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored publications from 2010 to 2015. Confirmation of the importance of 9/10 recommendations by the respondents was encouraging. Yet, low adoption rates suggest that additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency and credibility.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

BACKGROUND

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.

MAIN BODY

When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals' authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.

CONCLUSION

Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors' good judgment and the publisher's procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.

How are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?

The editors of scholarly journals have a duty to uphold and promote the highest standards of ethical conduct of research. They also have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the literature, and to promote transparency and honesty in reporting research findings. In the process of screening manuscripts they receive for possible publication, editors have the obligation to report infractions to the institutions of offending authors, and request an investigation. Since editors can reject a paper on ethical grounds, they can be considered to be the guardians of ethics who should express high ethical standards in conducting and publishing their own research. An examination of several publishers' websites reveals no such requirement or clear selection criteria for journal editors. Therefore, we aim to discuss the factors that publishers, in a broad sense, should consider when selecting editors for scholarly journals and believe that such criteria should be made public to ensure accountability. This would restore some of the eroding public trust in disseminated research, fortify confidence in the composition and qualification of members of an editorial board, and help to protect the reputations of publishers and editors.

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.

An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well).  The top five items on participants' list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 "highly rated" competency-related statements and another 86 "included" items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future.

An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors' role in avoiding it

Publication bias is defined as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or the strength of the study findings."Publication bias distorts the accumulated data in the literature, causes the over estimation of potential benefits of intervention and mantles the risks and adverse effects, and creates a barrier to assessing the clinical utility of drugs as well as evaluating the long-term safety of medical interventions. The World Medical Association, the International Committee of Medical Journals, and the Committee on Publication Ethics have conferred responsibilities and ethical obligations to editors concerning the avoidance of publication bias. Despite the explicit statements in these international documents, the editors' role in and ability to avoid publication bias is still being discussed. Unquestionably, all parties involved in clinical research have the ultimate responsibility to sustain the research integrity and validity of accumulated general knowledge. Cooperation and commitment is required at every step of a clinical trial. However, this holistic approach does not exclude effective measures to be taken at the editors' level. The editors of major medical journals concluded that one precaution that editors can take is to mandate registration of all clinical trials in a public repository as a precondition to submitting manuscripts to journals. Raising awareness regarding the value of publishing negative data for the scientific community and human health, and increasing the number of journals that are dedicated to publishing negative results or that set aside a section in their pages to do so, are positive steps editors can take to avoid publication bias.

Encouraging Editorial Flexibility in Cases of Textual Reuse

Because many technical descriptions of scientific processes and phenomena are difficult to paraphrase and because an increasing proportion of contributors to the scientific literature are not sufficiently proficient at writing in English, it is proposed that journal editors re-examine their approaches toward instances of textual reuse (similarity). The plagiarism definition by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is more suitable than other definitions for dealing with cases of ostensible plagiarism. Editors are strongly encouraged to examine cases of textual reuse in the context of both, the ORI guidance and the offending authors' proficiency in English. Editors should also reconsider making plagiarism determinations based exclusively on text similarity scores reported by plagiarism detection software.

Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

OBJECTIVES

The paper presents data on the two problems of misconduct and marginality in management, business and economics (MBE) journals and their practices to combat these problems.

DESIGN

Data was collected in three phases. First, all publicly retracted papers in MBE journals were identified through keywords searches in 7 major databases (n = 1329 journals). Second, a focused survey was distributed to editors involved in such retractions (n = 64; response rate = 28%). Finally, a survey was administered to all active journals in the seven databases to collect data on editors' perceptions and practices related to the two problems (n = 937, response rate = 31.8%). Frequency analyses, cross tabulations, and qualitative analyses of open answers were used to examine the data.

RESULTS

184 retracted papers in MBE journals were identified in 2005-2015 (no retraction was found before 2005). From 2005-2007 to 2012-2015, the number of retractions increased by a factor ten with an all-time high in 2015. The survey to journals with reported retractions illustrates how already a few cases of suspected misconduct put a strain on the editorial workload. The survey to all active journals revealed that 42% of the respondents had started to use software to screen all submitted papers, and that a majority recognized the problem of marginality, as indicated by salami-style submissions. According to some editors, reviewers easily spot such submissions whereas others argued that authors may submit thinly sliced papers in parallel to several journals, which means that this practice is only discovered post-publication. The survey question on ways to support creative contributions stimulated a rich response of ideas regarding editorial vision, engaged boards and developmental approaches. The study uses data from three specialized fields, but its findings may be highly relevant to many journals in the social sciences.

Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review

Objectives

Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature.

Methods

Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (www.retractionwatch.com). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin.

Results

One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19).

Conclusion

The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators.

Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047.

The reporting of research ethics committee approval and informed consent in otolaryngology journals

OBJECTIVES

Medical research involving human subjects must follow ethical standards as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of reporting of informed consent and regional ethical committee (REC) approval in all reports of trials published in the major European Otolaryngology journals.

DESIGN

Review of all clinical research articles published online in the calendar year 2012.

SETTING

Three leading European Otolaryngology journals.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinical Otolaryngology, The Journal of Laryngology and Otology and The European Achieves of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Evaluate the incidence of reporting of REC approval and informed consent.

RESULTS

Of the 767 articles reviewed, 401 met the inclusion criteria (manuscripts reporting human subjects, human tissue or identifiable personal data research which require ethical approval). 49.9% lacked a statement of REC approval and 42.9% lacked disclosure of informed consent. Articles that did not state REC approval were associated with not stating informed consent (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Articles that lack explicit statements of REC approval and informed consent are frequent and continue to be published in major otolaryngology journals.

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.4) and 30% (95% CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.

Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study

A case of a particularly severe misbehavior in a review process is described. Two reviewers simply copied and pasted their critical comments from their previous reviews without reading the reviewed manuscript. The editor readily accepted the reviewers' opinion and rejected the manuscript. These facts give rise to some general questions about possible factors affecting the ethical behavior of reviewers and editors, as well as possible countermeasures to prevent ethical violations.

Tiny tweaks, big changes: An alternative strategy to empower ethical culture of human research in anesthesia (A Taiwan Acta Anesthesiologica Taiwanica-Ethics Review Task Force Report)

For this guidance article, the Ethics Review Task Force (ERTF) of the Journal reviewed and discussed the ethics issues related to publication of human research in the field of anesthesia. ERTF first introduced international ethics principles and minimal requirements of reporting of ethics practices, followed by discussing the universal problems of publication ethics. ERTF then compared the accountability and methodology of several medical journals in assuring authors' ethics compliance. Using the Taiwan Institutional Review Board system as an example, ERTF expressed the importance of institutional review board registration and accreditation to assure human participant protection. ERTF presented four major human research misconducts in the field of anesthesia in recent years. ERTF finally proposed a flow-chart to guide journal peer reviewers and editors in ethics review during the editorial process in publishing. Examples of template languages applied in the Ethics statement section in the manuscript are expected to strengthen the ethics compliance of the authors and to set an ethical culture for all the stakeholders involved in human research.

What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews

Objectives

To identify and understand, through data from multiple sources, some of the factors that affect authors’ and editors’ decisions to use reporting guidelines in the publication of health research.

Design

Mixed methods study comprising an online survey and semi-structured interviews with a sample of authors (online survey: n = 56; response rate = 32%; semi-structured interviews: n = 5) and journal editors (online survey: n = 43; response rate = 27%; semi-structured interviews: n = 6) involved in publishing health and medical research. Participants were recruited from an earlier study examining the effectiveness of the TREND reporting guideline.

Results

Four types of factors interacted to affect authors’ and editors’ likelihood of reporting guideline use; individual (e.g. having multiple reasons for use of reporting guidelines); the professional culture in which people work; environmental (e.g. policies of journals); and, practical (e.g. having time to use reporting guidelines). Having multiple reasons for using reporting guidelines was a particularly salient factor in facilitating reporting guidelines use for both groups of participants.

Conclusions

Improving the completeness and consistency of reporting of research studies is critical to the integrity and synthesis of health research. The use of reporting guidelines offers one potentially efficient and effective means for achieving this, but decisions to use (or not use) reporting guidelines take many factors into account. These findings could be used to inform future studies that might, for example, test the factors that we have identified within a wider theoretical framework for understanding changes in professional practices. The use of reporting guidelines by senior professionals appears to shape the expectations of what constitutes best practice and can be assimilated into the culture of a field or discipline. Without evidence of effectiveness of reporting guidelines, and sustained, multifaceted efforts to improve reporting, little progress seems likely to be made.

A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing.

CONCLUSION

Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on

OBJECTIVES

We assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.

METHODS

We extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

TREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.

Publication ethics

High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship. These problems are discussed in this article.

Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey

OBJECTIVE

To gather information about current practices and implementation of publication guidelines among publication professionals working in or for the pharmaceutical industry.

DESIGN/SETTING

Web-based survey publicised via email and social media to members of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organisations from November 2012 to February 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

469 individuals involved in publishing industry-sponsored research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly working in pharmaceutical or device companies ('industry', n=144), communication agencies ('agency', n=238), contract research organisations (CRO, n=15) or as freelancers (n=34). Most respondents (78%) had worked on medical publications for ≥5 years and 62% had a PhD/MD.

RESULTS

Over 90% of industry, agency and CRO respondents routinely refer to Good Publication Practice (GPP2) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements. Most respondents (78% industry, 79% agency) received mandatory training on ethical publication practices. Over 90% of respondents' companies had publication guidelines or policies and required medical writing support to be acknowledged in publications (96% industry, 99% agency). Many industry respondents used publication management tools to monitor compliance with company guidelines and about half (46%) stated that their company had formal publication audits. Fewer agencies audited adherence to guidelines but 20% of agency respondents reported audits of employees and 6% audits of freelancers. Of concern, 37% of agency respondents reported requests from authors or sponsors that they believed were unethical, although 93% of these requests were withdrawn after respondents explained the need for compliance with guidelines. Most respondents' departments (63% industry, 58% agency, 60% CRO) had been involved in publishing studies with negative or inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this sample, most publication professionals working in or for industry were aware of, and applying, major publication guidelines. However, the survey also identified specific areas where education and promotion of guidelines are needed to ensure ethical publication practices.

Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe

Publication ethics is an important aspect of both the research and publication enterprises. It is particularly important in the field of biomedical science because published data may directly affect human health. In this article, we examine publication ethics policies in biomedical journals published in Central and Eastern Europe. We were interested in possible differences between East European countries that are members of the European Union (Eastern EU) and South-East European countries (South-East Europe) that are not members of the European Union. The most common ethical issues addressed by all journals in the region were redundant publication, peer review process, and copyright or licensing details. Image manipulation, editors' conflicts of interest and registration of clinical trials were the least common ethical policies. Three aspects were significantly more common in journals published outside the EU: statements on the endorsement of international editorial standards, contributorship policy, and image manipulation. On the other hand, copyright or licensing information were more prevalent in journals published in the Eastern EU. The existence of significant differences among biomedical journals' ethical policies calls for further research and active measures to harmonize policies across journals.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol)

BACKGROUND

An estimated $100 billion is lost to 'waste' in biomedical research globally, annually, much of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One area of waste involves bias in reporting research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (that is, journalology) of biomedical research. One reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engaging in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another might be that the peer review process for journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, and having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have limited knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities in writing for publication, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of journalology training opportunities or evaluations of their effectiveness.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review to synthesize studies that evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in journalology. A comprehensive three-phase search approach will be employed to identify evaluations of training opportunities, involving: 1) forward-searching using the Scopus citation database, 2) a search of the MEDLINE In-Process and Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO databases, as well as the databases of the Cochrane Library, and 3) a grey literature search.

DISCUSSION

This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the journalological training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors. While there is ample evidence that many members of these groups are not getting the necessary training needed to excel at their respective journalology-related tasks, little is known about the characteristics of existing training opportunities, including their effectiveness. The proposed systematic review will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of training, therefore giving potential trainees, course designers, and decision-makers evidence to help inform their choices and policies regarding the merits of specific training opportunities or types of training.

Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal

To assess the prevalence of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ). All manuscripts submitted in 2009-2010 were analyzed using plagiarism detection software: eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and WCopyfind. Plagiarism was suspected in manuscripts with more than 10% of the text derived from other sources. These manuscripts were checked against the Déjà vu database and manually verified by investigators. Of 754 submitted manuscripts, 105 (14%) were identified by the software as suspicious of plagiarism. Manual verification confirmed that 85 (11%) manuscripts were plagiarized: 63 (8%) were true plagiarism and 22 (3%) were self-plagiarism. Plagiarized manuscripts were mostly submitted from China (21%), Croatia (14%), and Turkey (19%). There was no significant difference in the text similarity rate between plagiarized and self-plagiarized manuscripts (25% [95% CI 22-27%] vs. 28% [95% CI 20-33%]; U = 645.50; P = 0.634). Differences in text similarity rate were found between various sections of self-plagiarized manuscripts (H = 12.65, P = 0.013). The plagiarism rate in the Materials and Methods (61% (95% CI 41-68%) was higher than in the Results (23% [95% CI 17-36%], U = 33.50; P = 0.009) or Discussion (25.5 [95% CI 15-35%]; U = 57.50; P < 0.001) sections. Three authors were identified in the Déjà vu database. Plagiarism detection software combined with manual verification may be used to detect plagiarized manuscripts and prevent their publication. The prevalence of plagiarized manuscripts submitted to the CMJ, a journal dedicated to promoting research integrity, was 11% in the 2-year period 2009-2010.

Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship.