Contenu connexe

Plus de Ayurveda Network, BHU(20)

Publication Ethics: Overview

  1. Why publish?  Without publications, science cannot progress  Without publication, you may not get a placement or promotion  You may not get your project sanctioned if you have no publications  Publications keep you ahead of your colleagues: publication makes you ‘Immortal’! 2
  2. PubMed search  Ayurveda: 5,000  Traditional Chinese medicine: 40,000  Panchakarma: 100  Acupuncture: 24,000
  3. Reasons?  Limited awareness regarding the importance  No training is given in scientific writing during formal Ayurveda education  Differences between Magazines, Newsletters, Journals and Books are not clearly understood  Not aware of the important guidelines while planning the research protocols and while writing the manuscripts 4
  4. The Peer Review ProcessStudy conducted Study communicated to a journal Editors send article for peer review Reviewer comments are communicated to the authors. Article is rejected or revised and resubmitted. Reviewers read the article and provide feedback If the article finally meets the editorial and peer standards, it is published. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5
  5. Purpose of peer review:  Technical: Quality of science  Subjective: Interesting, important, and relevant ?  Influences what science enters the public domain  Assists authors and editors in publishing quality research. 6
  6. Where to Publish? 7
  7. What is a ‘Good’ journal? (Minimum essential requirements)  Must be available online (Searchable/Easy to locate/share)  Must be ‘Peer-reviewed’ (Refereed)  Must be indexed with some widely consulted database (e.g., PubMed Central, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus)  Google Scholar is NOT an indexing database 8
  8. ‘Better’ journal (Optional requirements):  Has got a good Impact Factor  ‘National’ / ‘International’  Has got good SNIP/SJR ranking/Cite-Score  It is an ‘Open Access’ journal (Sometimes a requirement) 9
  9. ‘Convenient’:  Takes minimum time for editorial decision  Provides easy online submission process, /manuscript tracking facility  Known Acceptance Rate  No article processing fee / color printing charges/ reprint charges / submission fee 10
  10. Be careful  Fake Impact Factors / Fake Journal Metrics  ‘Author Pays’ model of Open Access  Fake Peer-Review process  Don’t fall prey to ‘Call for papers’  Claims such as ‘Under the process of PubMed indexing’  Claims such as ‘Indexed in Elsevier’ 11
  11. 12
  12. Bogus journal metrics (Examples)  Advanced Science Index  Directory of Journal Quality Factor  International Scientific Indexing  International Impact Factor Services  GISI Impact Factor  Global Impact Factor  Universal Impact Factor  SJIF Impact Factor 13
  13. When to publish?  You have completed your study methodically, data analysis is over, and you have results with you (original article)  You have made some observation that adds significantly to the existing knowledge (Case study/ case series)  You strongly feel like responding to something that you have read / experienced recently (Letter to the editor)  You have some unique and different explanation to some important phenomenon (Review/ hypothesis)
  14. Before writing a manuscript, ensure:  You have followed all the standard guidelines while planning your study  You have executed the study according to the protocols  You have ethical clearance / all the original case sheets / duly signed consent forms / investigation reports / photographs / slides with you
  15.  You have license / permissions for reproducing pictures/figures with you  You have no conflict of interest in publishing the results  You have selected the journal to which you are going to submit the manuscript  You have read
  16. Authorship  Responsibilities of an author  Originality (No Plagiarism)  Good record keeping  Integrity, Honesty, Objectivity,  Openness / Transparency  Respect for IPR  Declaring Conflict of interest/ Disclosures  Copyright Agreements  Consent to reuse published content  Responsibility (Corrections/ Withdrawing/ Retracting) 17
  17. Authorship  First Author:  The one who has carried out the actual work, and has written the manuscript  Corresponding Author (Usually the senior most/last author):  The one who originally conceived the study, planned it and approved the final manuscript to be published  Second/ third/.. authors:  Who helped in carrying out the work and also in manuscript preparation
  18. What about…..  Those who did not contribute to your study, but helped you in writing the manuscript ?  Those who contributed to your study, but did not help you in writing the manuscript ?  Acknowledgement?  Author?
  19. Authorship: Ethical considerations Included in acknowledgments InvolvementinStudy Involvement with Manuscript High High Low Low Cramer and Rieger, 2001 Included in acknowledgments NOT included in acknowledgments: NOT listed as author List as author
  20. Revision of the manuscript  Editor communicates the Reviewers’ specific comments, (numbered) on the design, presentation of data, results, and discussion etc.  Read carefully all the comments  Don’t be in a hurry to re-submit your manuscript  Do rigorous homework on the manuscript at this point 21
  21. Responding to reviewer comments  Corresponding author’s responsibility  Revise manuscript thoroughly as per reviewer recommendations  Follow reviewers’ instructions as far as possible  Deny politely, if you have to  Give your point- by- point response  Highlight the changes in the manuscript with yellow color  Re-submit only after consulting your co-authors  Stick to the time frame 22
  22. What if reviewers fail to detect some errors?  Errors may be detected after the publication  Authors are encouraged to write to the editor if they find errors after publication  Communicate the sufficiently detailed Erratum to rectify the errors.  html 23
  23. Violations of Research Ethics 24
  24. Falsification: German cancer research  In 1998, German research funding agency looked at 347 papers published by two researchers, F.Herrmann and M.Brach.  It concluded that 29 of these contained falsified material and found evidence of data manipulation leading to a suspicion of fraud in a further 65 papers.  In most cases the falsification of illustrations of blood and other cells was noted. 25
  25. Fabrication: The Pearce case  In August 1996, Malcom Pearce, published a paper in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.  He claimed to have rescued an ectopic pregnancy by transferring it into the uterus, resulting in a successful birth.  The work had never taken place and the ‘patient’ did never exist.  Four other fraudulent papers were discovered after investigation, two of which had been published in the BMJ. 26
  26. Plagiarism: US National Science Foundation  A researcher was asked to peer review a proposal for research, which was later rejected on the basis of his comments.  This reviewer subsequently submitted his own research proposal to another funding body, which was accepted for funding.  This proposal was found to have plagiarised the original proposal.  The researcher had submitted a number of other research proposals plagiarised from proposals he had been asked to peer review. 27
  27.  Failure to disclose conflicts of interest: A study conducted in 1986 found that 96% of studies had financial relations with the drug manufacturer.  Multiple Submissions: Simultaneous submission of same paper to multiple journals  Redundant / Duplicate publication (Duplicate publication/ undisclosed publication)  Authors publish the same paper in a number of different journals  Suggesting Bogus Reviewers: Giving an alternative email id of the author so that the author himself becomes a reviewer 28 Other forms of Violation of research ethics:
  28.  Guest authorship: Including an author only because it may improve the chances of acceptance  The senior author (Geoffrey Chamberlain) on the ‘ectopic pregnancy’ paper had to resign from a number of senior positions.  Ghost Authorship: Actual author’s name not included  Anonymous Authorship: Publishing with pseudonym  Surrogate authorship: Publishing someone else’s work in one’s own name  Gift Authorship: Adding the name of the spouse/ friend as author 29
  29. Salami Slicing  Publishing the same data in different forms in different journals  Effect of Indian gooseberry on hyperglycemia in type-2 DM  Biomedical journal  Effect of Amalaki in Madhumeha with special reference to Prakriti  Ayurveda journal  Interferes in meta analyses as the same cases will be duplicated  Ethical only if the data is too huge and each paper addresses substantially different questions 30
  30.  Editors’ Responsibilities  Journal Owners’ Responsibilities  Publisher’s Responsibilities  Reviewers’ Responsibilities 31
  31. Further Reading:     
  32. Thanks! 33

Notes de l'éditeur

  1. ABC