1. Chapter 6 Publishing research results
Group 4
Chapter 6 Publishing research results
Huimin Zhu, Daniel Bermejo, Mariia Pavliuk, Roger Jiang.

2. Why Ethical publication issues are important, because:
1. Ethical violations, especially less serious ethical violations, are prevalent;
2. Rates of detection are low, but when detected consequences are serious;
3. Ethical violations affect the quality and integrity of science …
Ethical problems examples solutions Affected individual or organization
Carelessness Citation bias, Request for correction, Researcher or editor community
understatement letter to editor
Undeclared Conflict Failure to cite funding source Notification in the journal, Editor community and financial support organizations
of Interest possibly retraction of the article
Plagiarism Reproducing others work or Retraction of manuscript & Researchers and the supervisors
ideas without as one’s own notification of employer
Fraud behavior Fabrication of falsification of data Retraction of manuscript, Researchers, the supervisors and the editor community
notification of employer & publication ban

3. By using these solutions:
Values and interests...
1 Intellectual honesty in reporting research.
2 Accuracy in representing contributions of other scientists.
3 Collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of information.
4 Transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest.
Effects of these solutions have on each of the values above
Strengths/possibilities: The solutions may improve the researchers’ sense of honesty, accuracy the contributions of other scientists and also forbid the ethical violations, such as plagiarism and fraud, as the punishments are serious.
Weakness/risks: It takes time and energy to correct, and makes reseachers anxiety.
We need to analysis the risks and interests about all related organizations, based on this we can decide one solution is the optimal one.

4. Outreach through the media
Society support research and deserved quality information about what is going on
Media → Concerned on presenting important research (Urge to be the first in report findings, tendency to stress the dramatic)
Researchers → Interest in reaching the general public (oversimplify, tempt to fall into the media pressure, premature results, exaggerate the importance)
The public → Critical thinking (persecute verify research results and scientific discussion)

5. Open access publications
Publish on internet: alternative to traditional journals.
Traditional journals → (lose power and benefit from scientific society)
Researches → free access to information and publication, less control over publish results (influence in their career and reputation, avoid parallel publication)
Public, student, teachers → free access to information

6. Multiple Authors Multiple Authors Scientific community
Possible conflicts
Positive
Negative
All possible solutions
Random/Honorable distribution
Are not accepted
Frustration and disappoint-ment
Less energy to think about authors position in the paper
Does not pay tribute to the main author(s) (e.g., PhD student)
Alphabetic order
Will not know who has done more contribution
Not satisfied people with their place in a list
In case of equal contribu-tion no one will fill offend-ed regarding place which supervisor has given
All articles will be recognized by
Dr. Aa
Equal contribution mark to several authors
Will know who contributed most
Open question – who is still first
Group of people who did most are acknowledged
Sometimes makes expression that other authors did nothing
According to “Uniform requirements”
Accepted by international community
Much less if everyone accepts it
Give credits to the main author (first as a rule), PI (last as a rule), etc.
Is not sufficient if authors contributed less and can be just acknowledged
Informing about position in a paper at the beginning
Accepted by community
None unless another person contributed more later on
Everyone knows their position in the list and accepts it prior work is completed
The real contribution may differ from the expected

7. Authors Responsibility
Is considered responsible for content of a book/paper
For methods, validity and reliability of the results
To ensure that one and the same manuscript is not simultaneously submitted to /or published in several different journals
To interpret results in the light of previously published findings and other investigator’s results cited where relevant
To check all the references
To write clearly and precisely
For the quality of the manuscript in total

8. Should you split a study into multiple papers?
Why do this?
# publications important for career
Why can this (sometimes) be bad?
Incomplete results may be misleading
Duplicate publishing is bad
Citations > publications
What if multiple papers gives more citations?

9. OLE Should you split a study into multiple papers (in cases solution is unclear)?
1. Possibly. Co-authors may/may not want to split papers
2. Possibly. Co-authors may dispute final decision by corresonding author.
3. Irrelevant. No ”solutions” were suggested.
4. Main author, co-authors, research groups of authors, research institute of co-authors
5.6. (split) Research quality, bibliometric number, author credibility
(no split) more publications
7. Get 3rd opinion i.e. Peer review regarding to split or not.

10. Responsibility of publishers/editors
Following existing rules (in research ethics and current legislation)
Review by ethics comittee or equivalent
Human/animal experimentation
Ensuring scientific quality of articles
Clarifying method, results, analysis, etc (via reviewers)
Identifying conflicts of interest
Fair assessment of negative results
E.g. promoting disproval of contested hypotheses

11. Thanks for your attention!