1. Publication ethics PU 7, March 15, 2017
Jonas Josefsson, Department of Philosophy, lu

2. Publication ethics: Topics for today
Ethics and peer review process
Scientific publication: Guidelines and rules.
Plagiarism.
Consequences

3. Ethics and peer review process
Prepublication review process started in the middle of 1700 (The Royal Society) with Philosophical Transactions.

4. Ethics and peer review process
Risk: Biased reviewers and editors
Solutions: Double-blind review process
Single-blind review process
Tripple-blind review process
Open review process
Risk: Trust in validity
Solution: postpublication peer review?

5. Ethics and peer review process
Predatory journals (Jeffrey Beall’s list)
Open access business model without proper review process
Fake reviews
”Earlier this month (Nov 2016), BioMed Central and Springer announced that they were retracting nearly 60 papers for a host of related issues, including manipulating the peer-review process.”
“in March, 2015, BMC pulled 43 papers for fake reviews; a few months later, in August, Springer did the same for 64 papers.”

6. Publication ethics: Authorship
Non-proper authors/contributers:
Gift-authors
Ghost-authors
Honorary authors
The figures in the Lund University presentation are based on the 2009 financial year.
Figures up to 1 000 are given exactly. Figures over 1 000 are rounded to the nearest hundred.

7. Publication ethics: Authorship
Proper authors/contributers:
Authorship credit should be based on
substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
final approval of the version to be published.
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (October 2008)
The figures in the Lund University presentation are based on the 2009 financial year.
Figures up to 1 000 are given exactly. Figures over 1 000 are rounded to the nearest hundred.

8. Macchiarini 2011 Macchiarini article from 2011:

9. Macchiarini Macchiarini and The Lancet:

10. Publication ethics: Rules and guidelines
Legislation
Rules and guidelines issued be universities or other research institutions
Rules and guidelines issued by publishers

11. Rules and guidelines issued by publishers
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

12. Publication ethics: Publication practices
Non-proper practices:
Report results that have not been reviewed
Dubious authorship
Salami-papers
Double-dipping
The figures in the Lund University presentation are based on the 2009 financial year.
Figures up to 1 000 are given exactly. Figures over 1 000 are rounded to the nearest hundred.

13. Research ethics: FFP Misconduct: Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism
(”Para-fraud”)
The figures in the Lund University presentation are based on the 2009 financial year.
Figures up to 1 000 are given exactly. Figures over 1 000 are rounded to the nearest hundred.

14. What is plagiarism? Distinguish between: Quotation Translation
Paraphrase
Plagiarism

15. Plagiarism: simple definition
Plagiarism is the intentional or accidental misrepresentation of someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own.

16. Plagiarism: simple definition
Plagiarism is the intentional or accidental mis-representation of someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own.
What about self-plagiarism?

17. Plagiarism: not so simple
Plagiarism (Office of Research Integrity – ORI): ORI considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes. The theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes the unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript review. Substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work means the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader regarding the contributions of the author. ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of identical or nearly-identical phrases which describe a commonly-used methodology or previous research because ORI does not consider such use as substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance.

18. Scientists Behaving Badly BC Martinson, MS Anderson, & R de Vries
Scientists Behaving Badly BC Martinson, MS Anderson, & R de Vries. (2005). Nature, 435:

19. Publication ethics: Consequences
Errata
Retraction
Misconduct: Retraction + administrative actions

20. Retraction