Publication-related Conduct

Home/Good Research Practices/Publication-related Conduct

The importance of formal procedures to deal with allegations of research misconduct

Professor Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) has written an article in which he emphasises the importance of "established and settled institutional arrangements" (rather than "sloppy and ad hoc procedures") to investigate allegations of research misconduct in each university. Epstein points out that there should be no appearance of bias by the person(s) responsible for the investigation. Referring to his own experience in shaping the procedures at the University of Chicago, he writes that: "in order to avoid any risk of bias, the appointment of the

Categories: Abuse of Data, Accountability, Case Studies, Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism, Proper Data Handling, Publication-related Conduct, Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices, Research Misconduct|Tags: , , |

Should you peer review an article written by a former colleague?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Karen is asked by a journal to review an article written by a former colleague. They have not co-authored together, though they did discuss doing so once. They are both in the same very narrow field of specialisation and have found themselves repeatedly competing for the same jobs around the world. This article appears to be covering similar ground to the work Karen recently

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity, Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |

Is peer review confidentiality overridden when the author is suspected of misconduct?

The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that had been submitted at about the same time to Journal B. Editor A requested a copy of the paper submitted to Journal B. Editor B responded, confirming that the paper in question had been submitted to Journal B (submission date two weeks earlier than the paper submitted to Journal A),

Categories: Accountability, Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct, Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices|Tags: , , , , |

What is ‘salami-slicing’ and is it acceptable?

The Office of Research Integrity's Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (which is referred to in Section 2 of the HKU Policy on Research Integrity) explains the phenomenon commonly known as 'salami-slicing' as follows: "Salami publication (sometimes called bologna or trivial publication) is the practice of dividing one significant piece of research into a number of small experiments (least publishable units or LPUs), simply to increase the number of publications. This practice may distort the value of the work by increasing the number of studies

Categories: Honesty, Principles of Research Integrity, Publication-related Conduct, Responsible Conduct of Research|Tags: , , |

Does your CV have research integrity?

According to the HKU Policy on Research Integrity (Section 2.2, 'Publication-related conduct'): "Publication of the same (or substantial parts of the same) work in different journals is acceptable only with the consent of the editors of the journals and where proper reference is made to the first publication. In the author's CV such related articles must be indicated as such and not give the impression that they are distinct research outputs when they are in fact the same. Articles published in special/symposium issues should be

Categories: Honesty, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |

ICMJE Recommendations: Overlapping publications

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published detailed Recommendations on the issue of overlapping publications: 1. Duplicate Submission Authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal. The rationale for this standard is the potential for disagreement when two (or more) journals claim the right to publish a manuscript that has been submitted simultaneously to more than one journal, and the possibility that two or more journals will unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake

Categories: Honesty, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

Should you publish new articles similar to previous ones?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Mark is seen as an expert in his field of research ethics and research integerity. He is repeatedly invited to write chapters for edited research collections. The requests often ask him to draft similar articles to ones he has already published, albeit with changes to the jurisdiction or disciplinary mix. How should he plan his publication strategy? Commentary (by Dexter Leung) In the HKU

Categories: Case Studies, Honesty, Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

Should students offer co-authorship to their supervisors?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Wing Hong is a PhD student. Following a suggestion from his supervisor, Maggy, he writes an article for publication. Maggy provides extensive comments. The article is accepted subject to revision and, again, Maggy provides comments and hands over a draft of an article she is writing. Wing Hong uses material from this article and offers Maggy co-authorship. Should she accept? Wing Hong's second supervisor,

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Nurturing Students, Principles of Research Integrity, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |

Leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer – a COPE case study

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has shared a case study on its website regarding the leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer (http://publicationethics.org/case/online-posting-confidential-draft-peer-reviewer): Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the

Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , |

ICMJE Recommendations: Authorship Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations list 4 criteria for authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html): 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |