e-Text

NETAJI SUBHAS OPEN UNIVERSITY

Course: Research and Publication Ethics
Module: RPE-03: PUBLICATION ETHICS

Structure
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Publication Ethics : definition, introduction and importance
3.3 Conflict of interest
3.4 Best Practices / standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME etc.
3.5 Publication misconduct, definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behaviour and vice-
versa, types.
3.6 Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributorship.
3.7 Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals
3.8 Predatory publishers and journals
3.9 Summary
3.10 Questions
3.11 Bibliography

3.0 Introduction
Ethics, which means rules of conduct or moral principles, gains importance when it comes to creating
knowledge of any kind and specifically in the domain of research because the out come of research is
directly influenced by the integrity of the researcher. Now we will look into ethical issues that need to be
followed while carrying out any research. The unit discuses the concepts and procedures related to
research ethics. A few case studies and points of discussion to make learners understand how ethics
becomes important while dealing with field situations.
The topic of research ethics is important not only when conducting research but also when publishing it.
It is one of the crucial pillars for maintaining scientific integrity and credibility. The onus to implement
fair practices lies with researchers, universities/institutions, and publishers. This course materials intend
to provide a concise yet comprehensive resource to graduate students and early-stage researchers. The unit
also have discussed common areas where researchers often face doubts and challenges.

The unit also provided insights on popular topics such as how to assign authorship, how to avoid image
manipulation and plagiarism, how to manage research data effectively, or how to identify conflicts of
interests. This course materials will provide learners with ample tips for effectively handling all such
situations. Towards the end, learners will also find a list of authentic resources.
https://www.enago.com/academy/how-to-effortlessly-translate-academic-manuscripts-in-english/

After reading this unit learners will be able to:

Page 1 of 30
 • Discuss ethical issues in research;
• Explain concepts and procedures related to research ethics;
• Outline field specific research ethics; and
• Explain importance of research ethics.

3.1 Objectives

After going through this unit learners will be able

 To know about the Publication Ethics : definition, introduction and importance
 To distinguish about the Best Practices / standards setting initiatives and guidelines :
COPE, WAME etc
 To conjecture about the possible Scientific misconducts
 To surmise the redundant publications
 To distinguish between Duplicate and overlapping publications and Salami slicing
 To infer Selective reporting and misrepresentation of data
 To search for reasons, evidence and/or argument for warrant that might support one
belief rather than another
_______________________________________________________________________
3.2 Publication Ethics: Definition, introduction and importance

“Ethics” the term is generally defined as a set of principles that distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable behavior or way of conducting a task. These guidelines or principles may vary across
countries, disciplines, institutions, and even laboratories. For instance, these ethics may not only dictate
the conduct and functioning of an organization or a government but also a business entity! Do you know
which codes you should follow when conducting your research? One of the most commonly known ethical
code in medical practice, the “Hippocratic Oath,” dates back to 500 B.C. [1]. Over the years, guidelines
such as Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki have been introduced and implemented into practice.
Moreover, ethical policies addressing issues related to plagiarism, fabrication, conflicts of interest etc. are
being outlined at different governmental and academic levels. Refer to the ethics timeline below for a
detailed overview [2]. https://www.drishtiias.com/images/pdf/IGNOU%20Ethics.pdf

3.2.1 Ethical issues

 Why is it important for learners as a researcher to follow these ethical codes?
 How does adherence to these can impact learners credibility and repute in the scientific
community?
 Firstly, these ethical codes not only help maintain scientific integrity but also safeguard the primary
aim of conducting the research i.e. to promote knowledge and truth [3].
 Secondly, these values promote trust, respect, and objectivity in a collaborative work environment
by avoiding conflicts related to authorship, copyrights, and others [3].

Page 2 of 30
  Moreover, these codes help maintain the safety and interest of human subjects and ensure
appropriate care of animal subjects in a clinical or laboratory setting [3].
 Lastly, these ethical norms make researchers accountable for the quality and outcome of the
research that may directly or indirectly affect public health and interests [3].

3.2.2 Research Ethics Timeline

INSERT (P.6-7)
https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf --
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Shamoo and Resnik have effectively summarized the important ethical
requirements for researchers [2]:
 Integrity: Fulfill your promises and obligations of your agreements. Show sincerity and consistency in
your actions and thoughts.
 Honesty: Communicate and report your research data, results, methods, procedures, and publication
status honestly. Strictly avoid falsification, fabrication, and misrepresentation of research output.
 Objectivity: Avoid bias in experiment/ study design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review,
personnel decisions, and grant writing. Disclose both personal and financial interests.
 Competence: Strive to improve your expertise and take effective steps to advance competence in your
field.
 Carefulness: Maintain a good record of your research activities including data collection and
correspondences with journals. Examine your work thoroughly with peers to avoid errors.
 Openness: Share your data, results, tools, resources, and ideas.
 Legality: Adhere to required governmental and institutional laws/policies.

3.2.3 Definition of different Best Practices

Good research should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. To
conduct research to a lower standard may constitute misconduct.

Data analysis
Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does not necessarily amount to
misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct.

Authorship
There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts have been made. As a minimum,
authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study.
____________________________________________________________________
3.4 Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the
judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later,
would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political,
academic or financial. “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share
ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.

Page 3 of 30
Peer review
Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of
improving the study. Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in
which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or “edited” report.

Redundant publication
Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same
hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including
research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a
different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to
print and electronic versions.

• Plagiarism includes using someone else’s work without according credit to that person. The most
common form of plagiarism is using someone else’s published or unpublished writing and claim
authorship. Oftentimes, the plagiarized material is not from one source alone, but compiled from various
sources. Citing passages from others.

Duties of editors
Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their journal from the previous editor(s) and
always want to hand over the journal in good shape. Most editors provide direction for the journal and
build a strong management team. They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents,
including readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers and the media.

Media relations
Medical research findings are of increasing interest to the print and broadcast media. Journalists may
attend scientific meetings at which preliminary research findings are presented, leading to their premature
publication in the mass media.

Advertising
Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant income from advertising. Reprints may also be
lucrative.

Fraud
This refers to any form of manipulation of the data. It includes fictitious data generation (called
fabrication), selective recording of information, tampering with test results and findings. All forms of
fraud are unethical.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3.4 Best Practices / Standards Setting Initiatives And Guidelines: COPE, WAME etc.
According to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) GUIDELINES ON GOOD PUBLICATION
PRACTICE, https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf

Page 4 of 30
Why the guidelines were developed
COPE was founded in 1997 to address breaches of research and publication ethics. A voluntary body
providing a discussion forum and advice for scientific editors, it aims to find practical ways of dealing
with the issues, and to develop good practice. They thought it essential to attempt to define best practice
in the ethics of scientific publishing. These guidelines should be useful for authors, editors, editorial board
members, readers, owners of journals, and publishers. Intellectual honesty should be actively encouraged
in all medical and scientific courses of study, and used to inform publication ethics and prevent
misconduct. It is with that in mind that these guidelines have been produced. Details of other guidelines
on the ethics of research and published codes of conduct are listed in the Appendix of the report.

How the guidelines were developed

The guidelines were developed from a preliminary version drafted by individual members of the
committee, which was then submitted to extensive consultation. They address: study design and ethical
approval, data analysis, authorship, conflict of interests, the peer review process, redundant publication,
plagiarism, duties of editors, media relations, advertising, and how to deal with misconduct.

What they aim to do

These guidelines are intended to be advisory rather than prescriptive, and to evolve over time. Authority
hoped that these guidelines will be disseminated widely, endorsed by editors, and refined by those who
use them.

3.4.1 Study design and ethical approval

Action
(1) Laboratory and clinical research should be driven by protocol; pilot studies should have a written
rationale.
(2) Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just collect data.
(3) Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and collaborators, including, if appropriate, the
participants.
(4) The final protocol should form part of the research record.
(5) Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and collaborators, and on matters of authorship
and publication, is advised.
(6) Statistical issues should be considered early in study design, including power calculations, to ensure
there are neither too few nor too many participants.
(7) Formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriately constituted research ethics committee
is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and anonymised human tissues. (8) Use of
human tissues in research should conform to the highest ethical standards, such as those recommended by
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
(9) Fully informed consent should always be sought. It may not always be possible, however, and in such
circumstances, an appropriately constituted research ethics committee should decide if this is ethically
acceptable.
(10) When participants are unable to give fully informed consent, research should follow international
guidelines, such as those of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).
(11) Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles,
and local licensing arrangements. International standards vary.

Page 5 of 30
(12) Formal supervision, usually the responsibility of the principal investigator, should be provided for all
research projects: this must include quality control, and the frequent review and long term retention (may
be up to 15 years) of all records and primary outputs.

3.4.2 Data analysis

Action
(1) All sources and methods used to obtain and analyse data, including any electronic pre-processing
should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations should be provided for any exclusions.
(2) Methods of analysis must be explained in detail, and referenced, if they are not in common use.
(3) The post hoc analysis of subgroups is acceptable, as long as this is disclosed. Failure to disclose that
the analysis was post hoc is unacceptable.
(4) The discussion section of a paper should mention any issues of bias which have been considered, and
explain how they have been dealt with in the design and interpretation of the study.

3.4.3 Authorship
Action
(1) The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis
and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can
reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with
authorship.
(2) To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on in the planning
of a research project who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
(3) All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature
of much research can make this difficult, but this can be resolved by the disclosure of individual
contributions.
(4) Careful reading of the target journal’s “Advice to Authors” is advised, in the light of current
uncertainties.

3.4.5 Conflicts of interest

Action
(1) Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.

(2) Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from the review and selection process for the relevant
submission.

3.4.6 Peer review

Definition
Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of
improving the study. Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in
which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or “edited” report.

3.4.7 Redundant publication

Action
(1) Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.

Page 6 of 30
(2) Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not preclude The COPE
Report 1999 44 subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of
submission.
(3) Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent
disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
(4) At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different
language, and similar papers in press.

3.4.7 Plagiarism
Action
(1) All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of other people’s written or illustrative material
is to be used, permission must be sought.

3.4.8 Duties of editors

Actions
(1) Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s
importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
(2) Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially
sympathetic hearing.
(3) Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
(4) All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias
due to related or conflicting interests.
(5) Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
(6) When a published paper is subsequently found to contain major flaws, editors must accept
responsibility for correcting the record prominently and promptly.

3.4.9 Media relations

Action
(1) Authors approached by the media should give as balanced an account of their work as possible,
ensuring that they point out where evidence ends and speculation begins.
(2) Simultaneous publication in the mass media and a peer reviewed journal is advised, as this usually
means that enough evidence and data have been provided to satisfy informed and critical readers.
(3) Where this is not possible, authors should help journalists to produce accurate reports, but refrain from
supplying additional data.
(4) All efforts should be made to ensure that patients who have helped with the research should be
informed of the results by the authors before the mass media, especially if there are clinical implications.
(5) Authors should be advised by the organisers if journalists are to attend scientific meetings.
(6) It may be helpful to authors to be advised of any media policies operated by the journal in which their
work is to be published.

3.4.10 Advertising
Action
(1) Editorial decisions must not be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential: editorial and
advertising administration must be clearly separated.
(2) Advertisements that mislead must be refused, and editors must be willing to publish criticisms,
according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.

Page 7 of 30
(3) Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
___________________________________________________________________________________
3.5 Publication Misconduct , definition, concept etc.

3.5.1 Dealing with misconduct

Principles
(1) The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause others to regard as true that which
is not true.
(2) The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on the particular act or omission, but
also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer or publisher involved.
(3) Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by negligence. It is
implicit, therefore, that “best practice” requires complete honesty, with full disclosure.
(4) Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive.

3.5.2 Investigating misconduct

(1) Editors should not simply reject papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are ethically obliged
to pursue the case. However, knowing how to investigate and respond to possible cases of misconduct is
difficult.
(2) COPE is always willing to advise, but for legal reasons, can only advise on anonymised cases.
(3) It is for the editor to decide what action to take.

3.5.3 Serious misconduct

(1) Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously, but they must recognise that
they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious
cases.
(2) The editor must decide when to alert the employers of the accused author(s).
(3) Some evidence is required, but if employers have a process for investigating accusations—as they are
increasingly required to do—then editors do not need to assemble a complete case. Indeed, it may be
ethically unsound for editors to do so, because such action usually means consulting experts, so spreading
abroad serious questions about the author(s).
(4) If editors are presented with convincing evidence—perhaps by reviewers—of serious misconduct, they
should immediately pass this on to the employers, notifying the author(s) that they are doing so.
(5) If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing evidence, then editors should
confidentially seek expert advice.
(6) If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then editors should notify the employers.
(7) If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes should proceed in the normal
way.
(8) If presented with convincing evidence of serious misconduct, where there is no employer to whom this
can be referred, and the author(s) are registered doctors, cases can be referred to the General Medical
Council.
(9) If, however, there is no organisation with the legitimacy and the means to conduct an investigation,
then the editor may decide that the case is sufficiently important to warrant publishing something in the
journal. Legal advice will then be essential.
(10) If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted an adequate investigation of a serious
accusation, they may feel that publication of a notice in the journal is warranted. Legal advice will be
essential.

Page 8 of 30
(11) Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious misconduct

3.5.4 Less serious misconduct

(1) Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve employers in less serious cases of misconduct,
such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest.
Sometimes the evidence may speak for itself, although it may be wise to appoint an independent expert.
(2) Editors should remember that accusations of even minor misconduct may have serious implications
for the author(s), and it may then be necessary to ask the employers to investigate.
(3) Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.
(4) If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions outlined below.

3.5.5 Sanctions
Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are ranked in approximate order of
severity:
(1) A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine
misunderstanding of principles.
(2) A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
(3) A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
(4) Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
(5) An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
(6) Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the
misconduct, for a stated period.
(7) Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and
the indexing authorities.
(8) Reporting the case to the General Medical Council, or other such authority or organisation which can
investigate and act with due process. The COPE Report 1999

Appendix
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Facilities for non-patient volunteer studies.
London : APBI, 1989. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Guidelines for medical
experiments in non-patient human volunteers. London: ABPI, 1990.

3.5.6 ABPI fact sheets and guidance notes:

 Clinical trials and compensation guidelines, January 1991.
 Guidelines for phase IV clinical trials, September 1993.
 Guidelines on the conduct of investigator site audits, January 1994.
 Relationship between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, June 1994.
 Good clinical trial practice, November 1995.
 Patient information and consents for clinical trials, May 1997.
 Guidelines on the structure of a formal agreement to conduct sponsored clinical research, July
1998. Good clinical research practice, July 1998.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Guidelines for
Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Geneva: WHO, 1991.

Page 9 of 30
 3.5.7 General Medical Council. Good medical practice guidelines series:
 Consent, February 1999.
 Confidentiality, October 1995.
 Transplantation of organs from live donors, November 1992.
 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for
manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1997;277:927–34.
 Medical Research Council. Policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific
misconduct. London: MRC, 1997.
 Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on the mentally incapacitated. London:
MRC, 1991.
 Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on children. London: MRC, 1991.
 Medical Research Council. Responsibility in the use of animals in medical research. London:
MRC, 1993.
 Medical Research Council. Responsibility in the use of personal medical information for research.
Principles and guidelines to practice. London: MRC, 1985.
 Medical Research Council. MRC Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. London:
MRC, 1998.
 Medical Research Council. Principles in the assessment and conduct of medical research and
publicising results. London: MRC, 1995.
 Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Human tissue: Ethical and legal issues. London: Nuffield Council
on Bioethics, 1995.
 Royal College of Physicians. Research involving patients. London: RCP, 1990.

3.5.8 World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

What is WAME?
Established in 1995, WAME (pronounced “Whammy”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit voluntary association of
editors of peer-reviewed medical journals from countries throughout the world who seek to foster
international cooperation among and education of medical journal editors. Membership in WAME is free
and all decision-making editors of peer-reviewed medical journals are eligible to join. Membership is also
available to selected scholars in journal editorial policy and peer review. WAME has more than
1830 members representing more than 1000 journals from 92 countries (as of July 27, 2017). See
WAME's History. http://wame.org/about#WAME%20History

WAME has the following goals:

 to facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed medical journals;
 to improve editorial standards, to promote professionalism in medical editing through education, self-
criticism and self-regulation;
 to encourage research on the principles and practice of medical editing.

WAME's founding members also agreed that members of WAME shall be dedicated to high ethical and
scientific principles in the pursuit of the following common goals:
 to publish original, important, well-documented peer-reviewed articles on clinical and laboratory research;
 to provide continuing education in basic and clinical sciences to support informed clinical decision
making;

Page 10 of 30
 to enable physicians to remain informed in one or more areas of medicine;
 to improve public health internationally by improving the quality of medical care, disease prevention and
medical research;
 to foster responsible and balanced debate on controversial issues and policies affecting medicine and
health care;
 to promote peer review as a vehicle for scientific discourse and quality assurance in medicine and to
support efforts to improve peer review;
 to achieve the highest level of ethical medical journalism;
 to promote self-audit and scientifically supported improvement in the editing process;
 to produce publications that are timely, credible and enjoyable to read;
 to forecast important issues, problems and trends in medicine and health care;
 to inform readers about non-clinical aspects of medicine and public health, including political,
philosophic, ethical, environmental, economic, historical and cultural issues;
 to recognize that, in addition to these specific objectives, a medical journal has a social responsibility to
improve the human condition and safeguard the integrity of sciences.
WAME History
For an account of WAME's first 10 years, see The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME):
Thriving in Its First Decade.
Past Presidents
 Richard Horton (United Kingdom) March 1995 - Nov 1996
 Drummond Rennie (USA) Dec 1997 - Dec 1999
 Fiona Godlee (United Kingdom) Jan 2000 - Dec 2001
 Ana Marusic (Croatia) Jan 2002 - Dec 2003
 Peush Sahni (India) Jan 2004 - Dec 2005
 Michael Callaham (USA) Jan 2006 - Dec 2007
 Margaret Winker (USA) Jan 2008 - Dec 2009
 John Overbeke (Netherlands) Jan 2010 - Dec 2011
 Farrokh Habibzadeh (Iran) Jan 2012 - Dec 2013
 Lorraine Ferris (Canada) Jan 2014 - Dec 2015
 Rod Rohrich (USA) Jan 2016 - Dec 2017

Articles about WAME

 World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) launched (BMJ, 1995)

 The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME): Thriving in Its First Decade (Science Editor, Jan-
Feb 2005)

WAME Member Meetings

 Inaugural Meeting of WAME, September 19, 1997, Prague, Czech Republic
 WAME Third Member Business Meeting, September 17, 2005, Chicago, Illinois, USA
 WAME Fourth Member Meeting, September 11, 2009, Vancouver, Canada
 WAME International Conference for Medical Journal Editors, October 1-4, 2015, New Delhi, India

WAME Conference Reports

Page 11 of 30
 Report of the Bellagio Conference: Report of the Conference to Promote International Cooperation among
Medical Journal Editors. March 13-17, 1995, The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and Conference
Center, Bellagio, Italy
 WAME Report: An Agenda for the Future. The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and Conference
Center, Bellagio, Italy, January 22-26, 2001

Few of the international codes and policies [2, 3] include:

 Code of Ethics from the International Sociological Association
 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights from UNESCO
 International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects from the Council
for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)
 Declaration of Helsinki from the World Medical Association
 Nuremberg Code
 The Chemical Professional's Code of Conduct from the American Chemical Society
 Singapore Statement on Research Integrity

Ethical Guidelines --- CODES AND POLICY MAKERS

https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf
(INSERT P.9)
Various organizations have played an instrumental role in the development and adoption of the ethical
guidelines across universities, funding agencies, publishers, and institutions. Some of the prominent
names are listed below. Moreover, universities and research institutes set up an independent administrative
entity called ethical committee (EC) or an institutional review board (IRB). This body is mainly
responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in clinical studies. IRBs and
ECs oversee any clinical trial or biomedical research [4]. These entities not only review the protocol but
also ensure compliance with the required ethical codes, thereby minimizing any risk to the subjects
involved.

3.6 Violation of Publication Ethics, Authorship and Contributorship

Introduction
According to Shubha Singhal1 & Bhupinder Singh Kalra1 (2020) A scientific paper is an organized
description of hypothesis, data, and conclusions, intended to instruct the readers. Research conducted has
to be published or documented; otherwise, it is considered not done. Publication of paper is critical for the
evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others [1]. The roots
of scholarly, scientific publishing can be traced to 1665, when Henry Oldenburg of the British Royal
Society established the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The aim of the journal
was to create a public record of original contribution to knowledge and also to encourage scientists to
“speak” directly to others [2]. Documentation of research work followed by publication helps in the
dissemination of observations and findings. This flow of knowledge guides and contributes towards
research coalition. Established and budding researchers do get benefited by published literature and consolidates
their research. Publication of research in peer-reviewed journal not only validates the research and boosts
confidence of the authors but also gives national and international recognition to an author, department,
university, and institution [3]. Unfortunately, in some establishments, the most compelling reason for publication
is to fulfill specific job requirements by employers. It may include promotion to an academic position and

Page 12 of 30
improving prospects of success in research grant application. The importance of publication in the career is further
emphasized by the adage “Publish or perish,” i.e. publish your research or lose your identity.

Ethics-related organizations and their role

A good research involves many coordinated steps. It starts from hypothesis, selection of appropriate study
design, study execution, data collection, analysis, and finally publication. Not only the conduct of the
study requires ethics to be adhered to but also the process of publication comes under the purview of
ethics. Any publication that reports the results and draws the conclusion from the data which have been
manipulated is considered research fraud or scientific misconduct [4].

Recently, Lancet retracted a study entitled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a

macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” because the veracity of the data
underlying this observational study could not be assured by the study authors [5]. There are organizations
which give recommendations and develop guidelines to assist authors, editors, and reviewers. The purpose
is to create and disseminate accurate, clear, reproducible, unbiased research papers.

The organizations involved with publication ethics are

1) International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE).
2) World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
3) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) The ICMJE was established in 1978, in Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada, by a group of medical journal editors. ICMJE developed recommendations which are
primarily for authors who want to submit their work in ICMJE member journals. These recommendations
discuss the role and responsibilities of the authors, contributors, reviewers, and editors. Steps of
manuscript preparation, submission, and editorial issues related to publication in medical journals are also
discussed and drafted.

The uniform requirements for manuscript submitted to biomedical journals, which most of the journals
are following were drafted by ICMJE [6]. The WAME is a nonprofit voluntary association, which was
established in 1995 by a group of members of the ICMJE.

Goal of the Organisation

The goal was to improve editorial standards, promote professionalism in medical editing, and encourage
research on the principals and practice of medical editing. The role of WAME is to facilitate worldwide
cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed medical journal. Membership in WAME
is free and all decision-making editors of peer reviewed journals are eligible to join. WAME has more
than 1830 members representing more than 1000 journals from 92 countries [7]. The COPE also helps in
ethical publication. COPE was founded in 1997 by a small number of UK medical editors as a self-help
group to discuss troubling ethical cases in the publication process. It provides paid membership and
currently has more than 7000 members in various disciplines from all parts of the world. The purpose of
COPE is to find the practical ways to deal with the misconduct cases and to develop codes of conduct for
good publication practice. It also generates the funding for the research based on the issues related to
publication misconduct [8].

Page 13 of 30
Process of publication
The scientific publication is a team effort. Transforming the research findings and observations into a
published article is an art as well as science, which involves multiple steps. The very first step is the
preparation of the manuscript as per the journal’s requirement. The language in which the manuscript has
been drafted is important. It should be checked by an expert or native language speaker and the senior
authors. Clear and concise language helps editors and reviewers to concentrate on the content. For up-to-
date information, recent references should be cited.

Final manuscript must be shared with all the authors and it should have approval of all the authors.
Copyright transfer form should be signed by all the authors before submitting to the journal. Signing the
copyright form brings responsibility. Submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editors for its
suitability, content, novelty, and what it adds to existing knowledge. The subject of research work should
be synchronized with the target journal.

It should comply with journal’s manuscript drafting guidelines. After the editorial screening, if some
technical issues or non-adherence to manuscript guidelines are observed, it is sent back to the author for
technical modifications. The peer review process gets initiated after technical modifications are
acceptable. It may take a couple of weeks/months. In light of reviewer’s recommendations, the editor
sends the decision letter to the author mentioning the status of the manuscript, i.e. accepted, rejected, or
requires revision. In case of revision, author(s) reply in detail to all comments of reviewers and submit to
the journal again within stipulated time.

After deliberation on replies and revised manuscript submitted, the editor decides for suitability of
publication or if it needs to be sent out for review again. These steps get repeated until the manuscript is
accepted or rejected. Once it gets accepted, it goes under proof read stage and finally gets published. The
author is never in direct communication with the reviewer. He communicates with the Editorial board
only.

Criteria of authorship Academic life revolves around publications

The publication adds to the credibility of the research and brings fame and recognition. An author is an
individual who fulfills enlisted criteria collectively:
(1) substantial contributions to conception and design;
(2) acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
(3) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
(4) final approval of the version to be published.

Individuals who have provided technical services/translating text/identifying patients for study/ supplying
material/providing funds/applied statistics/ medical writers are not eligible for authorship. However, all
those contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgement
section [12, 13]. Because of the important role of publication in clinical practice and academic setting, the
authorship of articles must be honest, reliable, trustworthy, and transparent.

Types of authors
Since authorship is sought after, many unethical practices are also prevalent. Ghost, guest, or gift authors
are the examples of such practices.

Page 14 of 30
Ghost Author
A ghost author is a person who has made a substantial contribution to the research or writing of a
manuscript but is not listed as an author. A ghost author might be a direct employee or hired contract
employee of pharmaceutical company and hence, listing him as an author amounts to COI [14].

Guest or gift/honorary author

It is dishonest to omit an author who has made significant contributions. In contrast to ghost author, guest
or gift/honorary author is someone who is named as an author, but who did not contribute in a meaningful
way to the design, research, analysis, or writing of a paper. Often guest or gift authors are well known and
well respected in the field of research.

The inclusion of their name in the author list might increase chances of acceptance for publication.
However, sometimes senior investigators may also give honorary authorship to their colleagues for
encouraging collaborations and maintaining good working relations or as repayment of favors. Whatever
the cause, the gift or guest authorship is an unacceptable practice in publication. The presence of well-
known author on the board as a guest author can influence the opinion of clinicians, academicians, and
politicians about a particular drug or device.

Secondly, due to gift authorship, the person is perceived as being more skilled than his colleague who has
not published [12, 13]. In multicenter trials, since investigators from different sites have contributed, they
qualify for the authorship and all those who qualify for authorship should be listed [15]. One should always
remember that authorship brings responsibility and authors have to be accountable to the data and results
which are published. Authorship issues/disputes Authorship issues or disputes account for 2% to 11% of
all disagreement in the scientific community.

Inclusion or exclusion of authors

The authorship disputes could range from order of authorship, inclusion or exclusion of authors, number
of authors etc. Request for addition of authors after submission or even after publication is quite common.
In contrast, there are examples where a co-author denies becoming a part of a manuscript, once any
scientific misconduct including plagiarism is detected [16].

Group authorship
The order of authorship should be mutually decided before taking up the study. It has to be a joint decision
of all coauthors. In multicenter trials, research group includes large number of researchers. Hence, the
corresponding author specifies and registers the group name and clearly identifies the group members who
can take credit and responsibility for the work as an author. I

CMJE and other organizations issued the guidelines regarding group authorship and stated that in case of
group authorship the byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and
MEDLINE lists as authors. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of
individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators [17].

Attribution of credit
Despite these guidelines, authorship battles for inappropriate attribution of credit are witnessed in this area
also. Usually, the dispute is for the “First author” place because most of the articles are cited by the name
of the first author. Conventionally, the extent of involvement decides the order of authorship; for example,

Page 15 of 30
the person who has done the majority of the groundwork would be considered eligible for being the first
author (junior researcher) and the person who planned and conceived the study would be the last author
(supervisor).

There is no general consensus in order of authorship, and there are different schools of thoughts [16].
During submission of revised manuscript, order of authorship should not be altered without any
justification. Approval from all authors is warranted in case of revision of order of authorship. It affects
the credibility of manuscript too. How to resolve authorship issues The best way to prevent disputes in
authorship is to generate awareness among research groups about authorship criteria and to develop
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the conduct and publication of research. COPE guidelines are to
be referred in case of authorship or conflicts [18].
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5.pdf

Assigning Authorship
https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf -- (INSERT P.23)
The importance of the names appearing at the top of a research or a review paper is known to us. Allocating
authorship allows researchers to assign appropriate credit and acknowledge their contribution to the
research. However, assigning authorship is not always that simple as it also implies accountability and
responsibility for the published work. Authorship issues can sometimes lead to conflicts and give rise to
misconducts. Many journals now, therefore, request researchers to submit contributorship statement
mentioning the role of each researcher.

According to ICMJE [15], an author must satisfy these four criteria:.

 Made substantial contributions to the design and conception of the study; data collection,
analysis, and interpretation.
 Drafted or revised the intellectual content/ output.
 Approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
 Agreed to be accountable for the research work, ensuring that queries related to accuracy or
integrity of the research are resolved.
Moreover, the author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for which part of the
work. According to ICMJE, in a large multi-author study, the decision on authorship should be taken
before submitting a manuscript to the journal. Each author of such studies should qualify those four criteria
and individually submit conflicts of disclosure forms to the journal editor.

Additionally, some large multi-author groups can choose a group name to assign authorship. In that case,
a group name should be used when making a submission to the journal along with a description of who
all qualify as authors in that group. What about individuals who do not qualify all four of the criteria, but
have contributed to the study? You should make sure to acknowledge them as contributors.

Contributors usually help in the acquisition of funding, supervising research group, providing
administrative support, assisting in technical writing, editing, proofreading, etc. 21 Apart from that, the
corresponding author communicates with the journal during manuscript submission, peer review, and
publishing. He/she ensures that all the documentation requirements related to ethics committees approvals,
authorship, conflict of interest, clinical trial registration etc. are met [15]. Researchers, especially those at

Page 16 of 30
the early stage of their careers should ensure to follow appropriate author guidelines by the target journal
or international organizations such as ICMJE, World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the
American Medical Writers Association (AMWA). You can also consult your advisors or mentors to solve
these issues. (PUBLISHING RESEARCH ETHICALLY https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf (P.26-7)

3.7 Identification of Publication Misconduct, Complaints and Appeals

Introduction
The next best option to prevent disputes is to have open discussion among all the authors involved in
multidisciplinary research prior to initiating research, i.e. at the time of protocol drafting. Defining the
role and responsibility of each author further reduces the chances of disputes within the research team.
Editors do ask for individual contributions of authors in designing manuscript. The journal can blacklist
guest or ghost authors [12]. Plagiarism: do’s and don’ts The word plagiarism was first used in the English
language in the year 1601 by the dramatist Ben Jonson to describe someone who was guilty of theft.
Plagiarism is derived from the Latin word “plagiare” which means to “kidnap.”

Scientific Misconduct
A plagiarist is the person who commits plagiarism [19]. By definition, plagiarism is the use of previously
published work by another author in one’s own manuscript without consent, credit, or acknowledgement.
It is the most common form of scientific misconduct [4].

Intentional vs Unintentional Plagiarism

Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional. Unintentional plagiarism is usually seen in articles written
by students or junior researchers. Lack of awareness and ignorance lead to unintentional plagiarism.
Intentional plagiarism happens when an author deliberately copies documented or published work and
presents it as his/her own. Both types of plagiarism are unethical and illegal, which can ruin the career
and reputation of the writer [19]. Plagiarism of idea occurs when a plagiarist copies or steals the idea or
thought of someone else and presents it as his/her own. Such type of plagiarism is difficult to detect;
however, once detected, it is considered serious offense.

The Example of plagiarism

The example of plagiarism of idea is presenting or documenting an idea of someone else which is being
discussed or presented in any conference or seminar without citing proper sources. Plagiarism of text or
direct plagiarism, i.e. word to word writing, is when a researcher takes large section of an article from
another source and pastes it in his/her own research without providing proper citation. One of the hybrid
varieties of plagiarism is Mosaic plagiarism where the author steals the idea, opinion, words, and phrases
from different sources and merges words without acknowledging the original author. Self-plagiarism is
the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in their subsequent
publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. There is no consensus as to whether this is
a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one’s own words one can use before it is truly
“plagiarism.”

Page 17 of 30
Causes and remedy of Plagiarism
To be on the safer side, authors should cite source or give reference of their previous publications. There
are examples in which plagiarism engulfed the entire career of authors and writers and it became the
reason of article retraction or rejection [20]. Culture of publish or perish is one of the important causes of
plagiarism. The researcher needs to publish a large number of papers in limited time period to get more
opportunities in career and research. In addition, lack of knowledge, laziness, and fear of failure and desire
of getting recognition also lead to plagiarism. Many softwares, which can detect plagiarism are available
online. It is the responsibility of the author to run their manuscript through software before submitting it
to the journal [19, 21]. The very first step to prevent plagiarism is the awareness about plagiarism, the
consequences, and how to avoid plagiarism.

Authors can avoid plagiarism by acknowledging the original source of the idea or word and enclosing
them within quotation marks. In case of paraphrasing, where the writer writes the text in his own word,
authors must properly cite the original source. Authors must always obtain permission for use of published
illustration. Authors should avoid writing multiple separate articles if he can present a large, complex
study in a cohesive manner in a single article [21].

Duplicate/ Redundant publication

Duplicate publication or redundant publication is a publication of a paper that substantially overlaps with
one which is already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication [26]. As per
copyright law and publication ethics, whatever is available in the journal for reading would be original
unless there is a clear statement that the author and editor are intentionally republishing an article. Hence,
duplication of publication is the breach in the copyright law and against the ethical conduct. In addition,
duplication of publication causes waste of limited resources and also leads to inappropriate weighting of
the result of a single study. It was observed that duplicate publications of Ondansetron led to
overestimation of its efficacy by 23% in one of the meta-analyses [26, 27]. The COPE classifies duplicate
publication into major and minor offenses. The major offense is the one where duplicate publication is
based on the same data set and findings which are already published. It is also considered if there is
evidence that the author tried to hide duplication by changing the title or order of authorship or by not
referring previous publication [28].

Duplicate publication does not prevent the author to disseminate important public health information in
case of public health emergency. In fact, ICMJE encourages editors to give priority to authors who have
made crucial data publicly available without delay [26]. Duplicate publications are justified if it is about
combined editorials, clinical guidelines, and translation of archives. Predatory publishing Predatory
publishing is the publication of an article in the journal that lacks the usual feature of editorial oversight,
transparent policies, and operating procedure of legitimate peer review journals. Predatory journals exploit
the authors by charging the publication fee and deceiving them by providing the false claim about the
journal’s impact factor, indexing, and peer review [29]. Predatory publishing is harmful for both the author
and the community. Predatory publishing may tarnish the image of the author. Articles published in
predatory journals are usually not appreciated by the subject expert. It can misinform the readers and
propagate wrong science because of poor quality control. J Gastroenterol (January–February 2021)
40(1):65–71. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5.pdf

Page 18 of 30
Mechanisms for Regulating Research
While self-regulation by the researcher is imperative to the ethical conduct of research, there are also
institutional safeguards in place. The primary institutional measure for ethics regulation is a research ethics
committee or an institutional review board. These are autonomous bodies nominated by the institution to
review all research being conducted in a particular institution to ensure that it meets the basic ethical
standards. Some ethics committees are not attached to any institution, but function independently.

They may review protocols for a fee. Such bodies are usually present in institutions which conduct
biomedical research. In India, social science research is not so regularly reviewed by Research Ethic
Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). However, of late, more and more universities
and research institutions are instituting such bodies to review research, both conducted by the students
and by the faculty. While such bodies may differ in composition, periodicity of meetings and procedures
but, they must meet certain criteria. They must be headed by an external person, not connected in any way
to the organization. It must be multi-disciplinary, having members from various disciplines, and from law
and philosophy. There should be at least one member who can represent the participants. The minimum
number of members should be five. Of these, external members not connected to the institution must be
in a majority.
The proceedings of the meetings of the REC/IRB must be formally documented and filed. It is necessary
to protect the confidentiality of the discussion, but decisions of the RECs/IRBs must be made available to
all in the organization. If there is a member whose own study is being reviewed, then that person must
withdraw from the discussion. Generally speaking, RECs arrive at decisions by consensus. However, in
case consensus is not reached, a vote is taken.

3.8 Predatory Publishers and Journals

(https://publicationethics.org/files/cope_dd_a4_pred_publishing_nov19_screenaw.pdf)

Introduction
Much has been written about ‘predatory publishing’ over the past decade. In this discussion document,
COPE have described the basic phenomenon, identified the key issues, described the impact on the various
stakeholders involved, analysed proposed interventions and solutions, and presented COPE’s perspective
on addressing the problem going forward. This discussion are synonymously refer to predatory publishing
and predatory journals/publications as fake scholarly publishing and fake scholarly journals/publications,
respectively, and elaborated on the issues with terminology. While the focus of this discussion paper is
primarily journals, there are also predatory conferences and predatory proceedings of those conferences.

Definition of Predatory Publishing

Predatory publishing generally refers to the systematic for-profit publication of purportedly scholarly
content (in journals and articles, monographs, books, or conference proceedings) in a deceptive or
fraudulent way and without any regard for quality assurance. Here, ‘for-profit’ refers to profit generation
per se. Whereas predatory publishers are profit-generating businesses, some may conceivably pose as non-
profit entities such as academic societies or research institutions.

This is not to suggest that ‘for profit’ is, in itself, problematic but that these journals exist solely for profit
without any commitment to publication ethics or integrity of any kind. Predatory publishers may cheat
authors (and their funders and institutions) through charging publishing-related fees without providing the

Page 19 of 30
expected or industry standard services. Predatory publishers may also deceive academics into serving as
editorial board members or peer reviewers. In short, fake scholarly publications lack the usual features of
editorial oversight and transparent policies and operating procedures that are expected from legitimate
peer-reviewed publications. It is widely recognised that the phenomenon of predatory publishing grew
with the emergence of online publishing, coupled with a widespread academic climate of research
evaluation linked to journal title prestige and journal-level metrics.

Although there is currently no single agreed-upon definition of predatory publishing,

1 Jeffrey Beall, an American academic university librarian, first used the term ‘predatory’ in the context
of publishers and journals exploiting the author-pays business model of online ‘gold’ open-access
publishing.
2 Consequently, predatory publishing is sometimes confused with non-predatory open-access publishing.

FAQ of predatory Journal

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/what-is-a-predatory-journal/article21039351.ece

A few things to look out for and signs that give away a bogus journal. Cabell’s International launched a
revised version of the list called Cabell’s Blacklist, which can be accessed for a fee at the company’s
website. With over 4,000 predatory journals (according to Cabell’s Blacklist), here are a few things to
look out for and signs that give away a bogus journal.

What is a predatory journal?

A predatory journal is a publication that actively asks researchers for manuscripts. They have no peer
review system and no true editorial board and are often found to publish mediocre or even worthless
papers. They also ask for huge publication charges

Why do academics publish in such journals?

In research environments, there is usually more value for quantity over quality. Hiring and promotion of
academics is based largely on their number of publications. Predatory journals has helped many pseudo-
researchers to prosper.

What is the harm caused by predatory journals?

Predatory and low-quality journals corrupt the literature. Medical science has been particularly hit hard,
with journals now devoted to unscientific medicine. “Peer review is at the heart of academic evaluation.
Publishing without peer review [while pretending that peer review was done] gives poor and mediocre
academics a chance for jobs and promotions which should go to better qualified researchers,” says Prof.
Sunil Mukhi, J.C. Bose Fellow and Chair, Physics Programme, IISER Pune.

How does one find out if a given journal is predatory or not?

“It requires a bit of work. If one is lazy about this, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion. For example,
some people think any journal from an unknown publisher, or a journal that charges for publication, is
necessarily predatory. That is not necessarily correct. The important thing is to dig deeper and find ….the
quality of submitted manuscripts….and its standards,” he adds Here is a curated list of Beall’s criteria for
identification of predatory journals and publishers as follows :
• No single individual is identified as specific journal’s editor with no formal editorial/review board or the
same editorial board for more than one journal.

Page 20 of 30
• The editor and/or review board members do not have academic expertise in the journal’s field.
• Provides insufficient information or hides information about author fees, offering to publish an author’s
paper and later sending an unanticipated ‘surprise’ invoice,
• No proper indexing.
• The name of a journal is unrelated with the journal’s mission.
• The name of a journal does not adequately reflect its origin (e.g. a journal with the word ‘Canadian’ or
‘Swiss’ in its name when neither the publisher, editor, nor any purported institutional affiliate relates
whatsoever to Canada or Switzerland.
• The publisher has poorly maintained websites, including dead links, prominent misspellings and
grammatical errors on the website.
• The publisher makes unauthorised use of licensed images on their website, taken from the open web,
without permission or licensing from the copyright owners.
• Re-publish papers already published in other venues/outlets without providing appropriate credits.
• Use boastful language claiming to be a ‘leading publisher’ even though the publisher may only be a start-
up or a novice organisation.
• Provide minimal or no copy editing or proofreading of submissions.
• Publish papers that are not academic at all, e.g. essays by lay people, polemical editorials, or pseudo-
science.
• Have a ‘contact us’ page that only includes a web form or an email address, and the publisher hides or
does not reveal its location.
• The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad (e.g. Journal of Education) or combine two
or more fields not normally treated together (e.g. International Journal of Business, Humanities and
Technology) in order to attract more articles and gain more revenue from author fees.

Before you submit your work to a journal, use this checklist (from Think.Check.Submit.Initiative) to
find out if it is a genuine one:
1. Do you or your colleagues know the journal?
2. Can you easily identify and contact the publisher?
3. Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?
4. Are articles indexed in services that you use?
5. Is it clear what fees will be charged?
6. Do you recognise the editorial board?
7. Is the publisher a member of a recognised industry initiative (COPE,DOAJ,OASPA)?

Characteristics of Predatory Publications

Attempts at definitive descriptions of predatory publishers have frequently been criticised as either being
incomplete or capturing features that may legitimately exist within the complex range and diversity of
scholarly publications. Some definitions of predatory publishing say that authors are charged a submission
and/or publishing fee, which some legitimate publishers also charge, but the predatory publishers
misrepresent the expected level of services, such as peer review and copy editing, that are provided by
legitimate publishers.

Commonly co-occurring features that may sufficiently characterize predatory publications are:
• Hidden or unclear author fees,
• The lack of quality peer review of articles by experts in the field, and

Page 21 of 30
• The guarantee of acceptance and/or the promise of very fast publication times (eg, within one week or
48 hours).

Thus, it could be argued that the main hallmark of predatory publishing is simply that there is no or
minimal quality control over the scholarly material in the publications (akin to practices of ‘vanity
presses’). Predatory publications are either silent about peer review or make false claims that the journal
is peer reviewed. Another feature which is commonly noted is aggressive emailed solicitation for papers
that are frequently outside of the scope of expertise of those receiving the solicitation. Predatory publishers
may also be unethical in other ways, such as plagiarising content in order to appear as having archived
articles/issues, selling authorship, allowing authors to publish plagiarised or questionable content, and
infringing or allowing authors to infringe copyright and trademarks. Requests by authors to withdraw their
articles or chapters are generally either ignored or not acted upon (eg, COPE Forum case 16-22).

Predatory publishers are also known to charge a high fee for the withdrawal of a manuscript, if they
withdraw the manuscript at all.

Warning signs of fake journals, based on the 16 Principles of transparency:

1. Website: The journal’s website contains misleading or false information (eg, indexing, metrics,
membership of scholarly publishing organisations), lacks an ISSN or uses one that has already been
assigned to another publication, mimics another journal/publisher’s site, or has no past or recent journal
content.
2. Name of journal: The journal name is the same as or easily confused with that of another; scope, or
association.
3. Peer review process: Peer review and peer review process and model are not mentioned, or manuscript
acceptance or a very short peer review time is guaranteed. Submitted manuscripts receive inadequate or
no peer review.
4. Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or management is missing, unclear,
misleading, or false.
5. Governing body: Information on the editorial board is missing, misleading, false, or inappropriate for
the journal; full names and affiliations of editorial board members are missing.
6. Editorial team/contact information: Full names and affiliations of the journal’s editor/s and full contact
information for the editorial office are missing, the editor-in-chief is also the owner/publisher, or the
editor-in-chief is also the editor of many other journals, especially in unrelated fields.
7. Copyright and licensing: Policies and notices of copyright (and publishing licence and user licence) are
missing or unclear.
8. Author fees: Mandatory fees for publication are not stated or not explained clearly on the journal
website, submission system, or the letter of acknowledgement and/or are revealed only in the acceptance
letter, as a condition of acceptance.
9. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: There is no description
on how cases of alleged misconduct are handled.
10. Publication ethics: There are no policies on publishing ethics (eg, authorship/contributorship, data
sharing and reproducibility, intellectual property, ethical oversight, conflicts of interest,
corrections/retractions).
11. Publishing schedule: The periodicity of publication is not indicated and/or the publishing schedule
appears erratic from the available journal content.

Page 22 of 30
12. Access: The way(s) in which content is available to readers, and any associated costs, is not stated,
and in some cases listed articles are not available at all.
13. Archiving: There is no electronic backup and preservation of access to journal content (despite such
claims). 14. Revenue sources: Business models, business partnerships/agreements, or revenue sources are
not stated; publishing fees or waiver status are linked to editorial decision making.
15. Advertising: Advertising policy is not given, or advertisements are linked to editorial decision making
or are integrated with published content.
16. Direct marketing: Direct marketing is obtrusive and gives misleading or false information.

GENERAL ADVICE AND APPROACH GOING FORWARD

As a member organisation with the mandate to provide education and expertise on matters related to
excellence in publication ethics, COPE provides this discussion document as an educational service.
Below are some suggested actions for selected stakeholders to take so as to tackle, avoid, and raise
awareness of the problem of predatory journals.

Authors, professional societies, and institutions:

a) Educate researchers, supervisors, librarians, and administrators in publishing literacy and about fake
journals (see the list of warning signs above based on the 16 Principles of transparency).
b) Identify trustworthy journals through the ‘Think.Check.Submit.’ campaign.
(https://thinkchecksubmit.org/)
c) Create and continually update community and discipline-specific journal whitelists/safelists using clear
criteria, similar to the ‘Directory of nursing journals’ jointly maintained by Nurse author & editor and the
International academy of nursing editors. (https://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/)
d) Verify spam invitations, made by email, text message, or telephone call, to submit manuscripts (eg,
research papers or invited reviews) or attend conferences. Consider using the DNS Checker to check the
Internet Protocol of suspected spam. (https://dnschecker.org/ip-blacklist-checker.php)
e) Check journal names, ISSN codes, and URLs are real ones; verify any claimed metrics, indexed status,
and organisational membership. Check that researcher profiles on institutional websites or LinkedIn
mention claimed editorship of journals.
f) Read a sample of archived articles from potential target journals to check quality. Avoid citing predatory
journal articles and beware when performing systematic and meta-analyses.
g) Beware of paying author fees, especially those that are suddenly demanded as a condition of acceptance,
without checking what they are for, and assigning copyright to a predatory journal. Demand manuscript
withdrawal if payment has not yet been made and/or copyright has not yet been assigned as a condition
of acceptance (see COPE Case number 16-22. Withdrawal of accepted manuscript from predatory
journal.) (https://bit.ly/2LaYOY4)

Funders and Institutions

a) Discourage publication in predatory journals and discourage citation of articles in predatory journals.
b) Exercise caution in the use of journal metrics during research assessments and staff appraisals. Consider
using peer review, as well as the following guidelines and recommendations:
i) San Francisco declaration on research assessment (DORA). (https://sfdora.org/)
ii) Leiden manifesto for research metrics. (https://www.leidenmanifesto.org/)
iii) The metric tide. (https://responsiblemetrics.org/the-metric-tide/)
iv) The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.
(https://osf.io/m9abx/)

Page 23 of 30
* It may be noted that not all legitimate author-pays open-access journals include copy-editing service
costs in their author fee or provide copy-editing services. Furthermore, not all legitimate journals are
indexed in respected indexes that many treat as whitelists/safelists. There is a range of quality in academic
journals and it should be noted that some non-predatory journals may not be good examples of best-
practice journals.

What do we mean by the term 'predatory publisher'?

So-called predatory publishers are a growing phenomenon in the world of academic publishing. There is
no one standard definition of what constitutes a predatory publisher but generally they are those publishers
who charge a fee for the publication of material without providing the publication services an author would
expect such as peer review and editing. Missing out on these important steps can undermine the final
product and perpetuates bad research in general and exploits the Open Access publishing model.
Predatory publishers typically contact potential authors directly via email to offer their services and
encourage publication with many starting to branch out into offering academic conferences. To the
researcher eager to make an impact with their work these can seem like very tempting offers but they often
come with little academic reward.

Are they really a problem?

It depends on the motivations for publishing. Traditionally these include enhancing the reputation and
visibility of the author and securing recognition for the work that has been done. Predatory publishers
rarely enhance reputations and in extreme cases may result in lasting damage. Even if the individual
research is sound there is little to be gained by having it sit alongside research that is substandard or even
wrong. Publishing with these publishers often entails signing away copyright which means that authors
lose the right to publish elsewhere.
However, there is an argument that these publishing models fulfill a genuine need as different reward
systems leading to different behaviours.

IFLA Code of Ethics for Librarians and other Information Workers https://www.ifla.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20Long_0.pdf

PREAMBLE
This Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is offered as a series of ethical propositions for the guidance
of individual librarians as well as other information workers, and for the consideration of Library and
Information Associations when creating or revising their own codes.
The function of codes of ethics can be described as :
 encouraging reflection on principles on which librarians and other information workers can form policies
and handle dilemmas
 improving professional self-awareness
 providing transparency to users and society in general.

This code is not intended to replace existing codes or to remove the obligation on professional associations
to develop their own codes through a process of research, consultation and cooperative drafting. Full
compliance with this code is not expected.

Page 24 of 30
This code is offered in the belief that:
 Librarianship is, in its very essence, an ethical activity embodying a value-rich approach to
professional work with information.
 The need to share ideas and information has grown more important with the increasing complexity of
society in recent centuries and this provides a rationale for libraries and the practice of librarianship.
 The role of information institutions and professionals, including libraries and librarians, in modern
society is to support the optimisation of the recording and representation of information and to provide
access to it.
 Information service in the interest of social, cultural and economic well-being is at the heart of
librarianship and therefore librarians have social responsibility.

Furthermore, this belief in the human necessity of sharing information and ideas implies the recognition
of information rights. The idea of human rights, particularly as expressed in the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), requires us all to recognise and acknowledge the humanity of others
and to respect their rights. In particular, Article 19 sets out rights of freedom of opinion, expression and
access to information for all human beings.

Article 19 expressly sets out a right to “Seek, receive and impart information and ideas in any media and
regardless of frontiers” which provides a clear rationale for libraries and the practice of modern and
progressive librarianship. IFLA in statements, manifestos and policy and technical documents too
numerous to list has expanded the understanding of work with information. Implicit in this work is the
idea of information rights and their significance for the profession and society generally. The emphasis on
information rights in turn obliges librarians and other information workers to develop a principled critique
of relevant law and to be prepared to advise and, if appropriate, advocate the improvement of both the
substance and administration of laws.

Checklist of things to watch out for

For those concerned about the issue of predatory publishing there are number of factors that can be used
to assess an individual publisher. Please note: none of these factors should be taken in isolation but used
alongside good judgement.

Association membership –
If a journal claims to be supporting Open Access then check if it is a member of either the Open Access
Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA) or the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). It’s also
worth checking if they belong to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which maintains a code of
conduct for publishers.

Transparency
A good publisher will be open about their practices with contact information and a mission statement
easily found on their website. Check the sending address of any emails carefully and look for spelling or
grammatical mistakes but be aware of cultural differences that may explain overly formal language.
Exercise caution if the publisher appears to focus on a huge range of topics as this may indicate a for-
profit rather than for-research approach.

Indexing

Page 25 of 30
Appearing in typical indexes and databases for their associated discipline is a good sign for a publisher.
However remember that there may be perfectly valid reasons why a particular journal is not indexed such
as being very niche or new. Authors could also try searching for other titles from the same publisher to
overcome this problem.

Quality of previous publications

Assessing previous output from the publisher in question may give an idea of the academic quality of the
publication. Check for basic mistakes in spelling or grammar in the work which may indicate a lack of
peer review.

Fees
Any author fees should be clearly explained prior to publication and be easily accessible to potential
authors. Be wary of any ‘hidden’ fees which are raised during the publication process.

Copyright

If the publisher claims to operate under an Open Access model then check whether a Creative
Commons of other type of open licence is being applied. The publisher should also be upfront about the
rights the author will retain after publication. It is the author’s responsibility to check that these don’t
conflict with any funder mandates. (https://creativecommons.org/)

Peer review
The process of the individual journal should be clearly highlighted and guidelines for both authors and
reviewers should be easily accessible. Beware of the promise of fast peer review periods as this may
indicate a less than through process.

Editorial board
Members should be listed, along with a named Editor in Chief. Authors should consider if the names
mentioned are recognised experts in the field the publisher is covering. It may also be worth checking the
web presence of some members to see if their membership is mentioned elsewhere.

Website quality – check if the website looks professional but be aware of cultural differences. What may
look sophisticated to someone from a large UK university may be out of reach of a smaller publisher in
another country.

Further help and resources

The following websites will help to make you to make an informed decision on where to publish:
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA)

3.9 Summary

This unit began with the evolution of ethical issues in research. In India two important bodies regulating
ethical guide lines and protocol in research are functional. One of them regulates the issues in bio-
medical research and the other one looks into ethical issues in social science research.

Page 26 of 30
Ethics, which means rules of conduct or moral principles, gains importance when it comes to creating
knowledge of any kind and specifically in the domain of research because the out come of research is
directly influenced by the integrity of the researcher. The topic of research ethics is important not only
when conducting research but also when publishing it. It is one of the crucial pillars for maintaining
scientific integrity and credibility.

Thereafter, there is a discussion on the various ethical practices that need to be followed while carrying
out research namely, informing the participants about the aim of the research and its description, risks
and benefits to the participants, researcher and the society at large. Other aspects like privacy,
confidentiality and intention of research should be shared with the participants. The unit ends with
discussing two case studies. The topic of research ethics is important not only when conducting
research but also when publishing it. It is one of the crucial pillars for maintaining scientific integrity
and credibility.

The unit also provided insights on popular topics such as how to assign authorship, how to avoid image
manipulation and plagiarism, how to manage research data effectively, or how to identify conflicts of
interests. Moreover, ethical policies addressing issues related to plagiarism, fabrication, conflicts of
interest etc. are being outlined at different governmental and academic levels.

Firstly, these ethical codes not only help maintain scientific integrity but also safeguard the primary aim
of conducting the research i.e. to promote knowledge and truth [3]. Secondly, these values promote trust,
respect, and objectivity in a collaborative work environment by avoiding conflicts related to authorship,
copyrights, and others [3]. Moreover, these codes help maintain the safety and interest of human
subjects and ensure appropriate care of animal subjects in a clinical or laboratory setting [3]. Lastly,
these ethical norms make researchers accountable for the quality and outcome of the research that may
directly or indirectly affect public health and interests [3].

According to Shubha Singhal1 & Bhupinder Singh Kalra1 (2020) A scientific paper is an organized
description of hypothesis, data, and conclusions, intended to instruct the readers. Research conducted
has to be published or documented; otherwise, it is considered not done. Publication of paper is critical
for the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others [1].

A few things to look out for and signs that give away a bogus journal. Recently, the Hyderabad-based
OMICS Group, (https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/injunction-against-hyderabads-omics-to-
stop-deceptive-practices/article20921941.ece) which publishes over 700 journals, was in the news for its
deceptive business practices. The US-Federal Trade Commission charged OMICS with making false
claims about peer reviewing and listing editors who have not agreed to be associated with the journals.
The number of predatory journals is increasing day-by-day and also getting more difficult to identify.
Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, first coined the term “predatory
journals” and maintained a listing of predatory journals which was later taken down. Cabell’s
International launched a revised version of the list called Cabell’s Blacklist, which can be accessed for a
fee at the company’s website. With over 4,000 predatory journals (according to Cabell’s Blacklist), here
are a few things to look out for and signs that give away a bogus journal.

A good research involves many coordinated steps. It starts from hypothesis, selection of appropriate
study design, study execution, data collection, analysis, and finally publication. Not only the conduct of

Page 27 of 30
the study requires ethics to be adhered to but also the process of publication comes under the purview of
ethics.

The scientific publication is a team effort. Transforming the research findings and observations into a
published article is an art as well as science, which involves multiple steps. The very first step is the
preparation of the manuscript as per the journal’s requirement. The author is never in direct
communication with the reviewer. He communicates with the Editorial board only.

Since authorship is sought after, many unethical practices are also prevalent. Ghost, guest, or gift
authors are the examples of such practices.
The authorship disputes could range from order of authorship, inclusion or exclusion of authors, number
of authors etc. Request for addition of authors after submission or even after publication is quite
common. In contrast, there are examples where a co-author denies becoming a part of a manuscript,
once any scientific misconduct including plagiarism is detected [16].

The next best option to prevent disputes is to have open discussion among all the authors involved in
multidisciplinary research prior to initiating research, i.e. at the time of protocol drafting. Defining the
role and responsibility of each author further reduces the chances of disputes within the research team.
Scientific Misconduct -- A plagiarist is the person who commits plagiarism.
Intentional vs Unintentional Plagiarism -- Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional.

The Example of plagiarism --- The example of plagiarism of idea is presenting or documenting an
idea of someone else which is being discussed or presented in any conference or seminar without citing
proper sources.

Causes and remedy of Plagiarism --- To be on the safer side, authors should cite source or give
reference of their previous publications.
Duplicate publication or redundant publication is a publication of a paper that substantially overlaps
with one which is already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication.
Predatory publishing may tarnish the image of the author. Articles published in predatory journals are
usually not appreciated by the subject expert. It can misinform the readers and propagate wrong science
because of poor quality control. FAQ of predatory Journal discussed.
Much has been written about ‘predatory publishing’ over the past decade. In this discussion document,
COPE have described the basic phenomenon, identified the key issues, described the impact on the
various stakeholders involved, analysed proposed interventions and solutions, and presented COPE’s
perspective on addressing the problem going forward.
As a member organisation with the mandate to provide education and expertise on matters related to
excellence in publication ethics, COPE provides this discussion document as an educational service.
Below are some suggested actions for selected stakeholders to take so as to tackle, avoid, and raise
awareness of the problem of predatory journals.

Above all - trust your judgement! --- If something doesn’t feel right with the publisher then further
investigation is needed. Think of the publishing process as you would online shopping and exercise
similar levels of caution – if an online store looks unreliable you are less likely to give them your credit
card details until you have investigated further.

Page 28 of 30
 3.10 Questions
1) What is ethics? Discuss in the context of research.

2) Explain how research ethics are different in the field of women and gender studies?

3) Discuss various practices to address the ethical questions in research with regards to research in this
discipline.

3.11 Bibliography

1. Bird, A. (2006). Philosophy of Science. Routledge.

2. Maclntyre, Alasdair (1967) A Short History of Ethics. London.
3. P. Chaddah, (2018) Ethics in Competitive Research: Do not get scooped; do not get plagiarized, ISBN:978- 9387480865
4. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. (2009). On Being a Scientist:
A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. National Academies Press.
5. Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
1-10. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfrn
6. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179-179.
https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
7. Indian National Science Academy (INSA), Ethics in Science Education, Research and Governance (2019), ISBN: 978-81-
939482-1-7. http://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/Ethics_Book.pdf
8. The Ethics of Librarianship. An International Survey. Ed. By Robert W. Vaagan with an introduction by Alex
Byrne. München: Saur 2002 VI, 344 p. Gebolys, Zdzislaw, Jacek Tomaszczyk: Library Codes of Ethics
Worldwide.
9. Anthology. Berlin: Simon 2012. 267 p. Professional Codes of Ethics for Librarians. IFLA-Committee on Freedom
of Access to Information and Free Expression (FAIFE). = http://www.ifla.org/en/faife/professional-codes-of-
ethics-for-librarians (19.03.2012)
10. Sturges, Paul: Doing the Right Thing. Professional ethics for information workers in Britain. In: New Library
World. 104, 2003, n. 1186, p. 94-102. (19.03.2012)
http://www.fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/frohmann/LIS774/Documents/Sturges%20on%20codes.pdf
11. Some Resources for guidance
12. 1. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Committee on Publication Ethics,
Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, World Association of
Medical Editors. (https://bit.ly/2lzGpLo)
13. 2. “Fake”, “predatory”, and “pseudo” journals: Charlatans threatening trust in science. International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (https://bit.ly/2kg08j3) Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or
pseudo-journals. World Association of Medical Editors. (https://bit.ly/2jWvT0p)
14. 4. Predatory or deceptive publishers – Recommendations for caution. Council of Science Editors.
(https://bit.ly/2lSd2UQ)
15. 5. AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP Joint position statement on predatory publishing. American Medical Writers
Association, European Medical Writers Association, International Society for Medical Publication
Professionals. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535)
16. 6. Predatory publishing. COPE Forum discussion summary. 5 November 2018. (https://bit.ly/2kzZDRh)
17. 7. Think.Check.Submit. An online guide to help researchers identify trusted journals for their research.
(https://thinkchecksubmit.org/)

Page 29 of 30
18. 8. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology ((January–February 2021) 40(1):65–71 POSTGRADUATE
CORNER: RESEARCH TECHNIQUES Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors Shubha
Singhal1 & Bhupinder Singh Kalra1 Received: 28 October 2020 /Accepted: 23 November 2020 #
Indian Society of Gastroenterology 2021.
19. Think.Check.Attend. https://thinkcheckattend.org/
20. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y
21. https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/predatory
22. https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/
23. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/what-is-a-predatory-journal/article21039351.ece
24. https://publicationethics.org/files/cope_dd_a4_pred_publishing_nov19_screenaw.pdf
25. https://beallslist.net/
26. https://osc.cam.ac.uk/about-scholarly-communication/author-tools/considerations-when-choosing-
journal/predatory-publishers
27. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5.pdf
28. http://mkuniversity.ac.in/research/Research_and_Publication_Ethics.pdf
29. https://bmu.ac.in/files/syllabus/research/Paper-IV%20Common%20for%20all%20-
%20Research%20and%20Publication%20Ethics.pdf
30. https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf
31. http://aegaeum.com/PUBLICATION-ETHICS/
32. https://www.hindawi.com/publish-research/authors/publication-ethics/
33. https://journals.lww.com/ijo/Fulltext/2017/65060/Publication_ethics.2.aspx
34. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y
35. https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/predatory
36. https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/
37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508450/
38. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/what-is-a-predatory-journal/article21039351.ece
39. https://publicationethics.org/files/cope_dd_a4_pred_publishing_nov19_screenaw.pdf
40. https://beallslist.net/
41. https://osc.cam.ac.uk/about-scholarly-communication/author-tools/considerations-when-choosing-journal/predatory-
publishers
42. https://publicationethics.org/files/cope_dd_a4_pred_publishing_nov19_screenaw.pdf
43. https://www.drishtiias.com/images/pdf/IGNOU%20Ethics.pdf
44. https://www.enago.co.kr/academy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Research_Ethics.pub_V2.pdf
45. https://www.enago.com/academy/how-to-effortlessly-translate-academic-manuscripts-in-english/
46. https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-
%20Long_0.pdf
47. https://creativecommons.org/
48. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/injunction-against-hyderabads-omics-to-stop-deceptive-
practices/article20921941.ece

Page 30 of 30