16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Misconduct in Research and Publication: a Dilemma That Is Taking Place

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Having considered current reports concerning plagiarisms taking place in the global science community, the authors decided to address the principal reasons, which lead to these illegalities. In recent years, misconduct in research, such as plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, guest author, ghost author, self-citation, etc. have been increasing significantly in scientific papers, proving a lack of commitment to publication ethics among some authors. Consequences of plagiarism Despite the scarce number of such papers, they may bring along consequent detrimental effects with a high possibility of irreparable results. Each paper, which is a sole compilation of plagiarized data, puts the science community’s prestige in great jeopardy, and at the same time all the investments, finances, and time, put behind that, are down the drain. To make things worse, such papers may serve as the basis of more researches with a horizon of alarmingly irretrievable losses. What if instead of investing on such a wrong way, which is basically for one’s self-interest rather than the promotion of the scientific community, all of these investments were poured into research and endeavor contributing to solutions for society’s problems. Loss of trust and confidence in science community is the worst repercussion of plagiarism, which makes researchers have grave doubts in all scientific findings and always see a question mark regarding almost any paper they may encounter. It seems as if, all deterring rules, regulations and fines, aimed at creating barriers on the way of perpetrators, have not obstructed their progress, and more and more of the above papers are increasing[1,2]. Current concerns from authors’ point of view Ph.D. candidates and masters level students, who by force of educational rules, are required to publish articles during their educational courses and long for non-scientific ways to lead the rest of their lives, are among other victims of some erroneous policies forcing them to write papers as a demanding job. This, indeed, pushes them towards disregard for legal frameworks of publication ethics[3]. Impact factor (IF) is a scientifically almost agreed measure for determining the rank of journals, although some new and better ones are being introduced. This index has limitations and does not necessarily reflect the credit of a journal. Although it might seem a good option; however, principle reconsiderations are required so that all aspects of a scientifically proven journal are covered. For instance, a sole article that might receive a high number of citations may easily affect a journal’s IF but it does not mean that other articles in that journal have the same quality as the mentioned paper[2]. Sometimes, some articles with an unbelievable number of authors are observed that are published in even good journals. The first question comes to mind is that how is exactly possible that one article may have more than 100 or even many more and whether it is consistent with ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/ roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) criteria for authorship. At the moment, we are not in the opinion that all huge multiauthor papers are inconsistent with ICMJE criteria, but this can be a subject of discussion. The other concern is that such articles may simply disrupt the fundamental principles of citation measures and related parameters. One of the biggest issues that researchers are dealing with is their insistence on all papers producing positive outcomes. Most of them wrongly think in a way that setting up and advocating a research proposal equal positive results. Although a publication with negative results might seem ineffectual at the first glance; however, it may shed light on the topics and the originality of previous publications reporting positive results[4]. This forces the researchers to expect only positive result, which could be the cause of bias in the way of conducting the research, per se. Such a misunderstanding will undeniably impose a negative impact on researchers’ findings and interpretations. The worse is the eagerness of a great variety of journals to only publish positive results. On such a basis, the question that comes to mind is that if all researches were supposed to create positive results, then why are we yet carrying out research to this large extent? Even though hypothesis is the essence of every paper, it does not mean it should always come to fully satisfying results. Research might be done for years, revealing all the previously performed studies to be wrong. Just because a well-known researcher’s work has to come to a desired result, shouldn’t make you be dubious about your results; as not only is there a possibility that the researcher has unwittingly made a mistake, but many other factors may have also played roles in that result. On the other hand, the science advances and laboratory methods are proving more meticulous, leading to extensive changes in previous knowledge[5]. Supervisors, who would not disgruntle hearing “this substance didn’t work” after a course of two-year research, are in the minority. The majority of them, in response to such a statement, would compare it with the results of the research already conducted by experts and may hold their fellows accountable for the failure of their research and this might serve as the beginning of plagiarisms and detours in question. Another concern is whether or not labeling research with terms of immorality would help to solve problems or may it harm the prestige of scientific community? The point is that although making these problems public may be in some ways harmful; however, revealing different aspects of misconduct can be helpful in eliminating its worst consequences. Moreover, discussing the issues of research misconduct in more private sessions may protect the outlook of the scientific community of medical and health care systems in the public. True researchers, who are not few in number, never turn to wrong ways to achieve privileges and deserve a big mention of name here. There could be hope that the scientific community never sees these immoralities. Apparently, the science world policies are in a great need of reforming criteria regarding publication ethics. Research is not comparable with soccer, in which fans’ morale is either boosted or destroyed when scoring or conceding a goal. However, conversely, conducting a medical research resembles walking on a narrow bridge built on a deep canyon, on which a misplacement of one step may lead to countless death, since researches are cornerstone of medical treatment and remedies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Plagiarism in Scientific Research and Publications and How to Prevent It

          Izet Masic (2014)
          Quality is assessed on the basis of adequate evidence, while best results of the research are accomplished through scientific knowledge. Information contained in a scientific work must always be based on scientific evidence. Guidelines for genuine scientific research should be designed based on real results. Dynamic research and use correct methods of scientific work must originate from everyday practice and the fundamentals of the research. The original work should have the proper data sources with clearly defined research goals, methods of operation which are acceptable for questions included in the study. When selecting the methods it is necessary to obtain the consent of the patients/respondents to provide data for execution of the project or so called informed consent. Only by the own efforts can be reached true results, from which can be drawn conclusions and which finally can give a valid scholarly commentary. Text may be copied from other sources, either in whole or in part and marked as a result of the other studies. For high-quality scientific work necessary are expertise and relevant scientific literature, mostly taken from publications that are stored in biomedical databases. These are scientific, professional and review articles, case reports of disease in physician practices, but the knowledge can also be acquired on scientific and expert lectures by renowned scientists. Form of text publications must meet standards on writing a paper. If the article has already been published in a scientific journal, the same article cannot be published in any other journal with a few minor adjustments, or without specifying the parts of the first article which is used in another article. Copyright infringement occurs when the author of a new article, with or without mentioning the author, uses a substantial portion of previously published articles, including past contributions in the first article. With the permission of the publisher and the author, another journal can re-publish the article already published. In that case, that is not plagiarism, because the journal states that the article was re-published with the permission of the journal in which the article is primarily released. The original can be only one, and the copy is a copy, and plagiarism is stolen copy. The aim of combating plagiarism is to improve the quality, to achieve satisfactory results and to compare the results of their own research, rather than copying the data from the results of other people's research. Copy leads to incorrect results. Nowadays the problem of plagiarism has become huge, or widespread and present in almost all spheres of human activity, particularly in science. Scientific institutions and universities should have a center for surveillance, security, promotion and development of quality research. Establishment of rules and respect the rules of good practice are the obligations of each research institutions, universities and every individual researchers, regardless of which area of science is being investigated. There are misunderstandings and doubts about the criteria and standards for when and how to declare someone a plagiarist. European and World Association of Science Editors (EASE and WAME), and COPE - Committee on Publishing Ethics working on the precise definition of that institution or that the scientific committee may sanction when someone is proven plagiarism and familiarize the authors with the types of sanctions. The practice is to inform the editors about discovered plagiarism and articles are withdrawn from the database, while the authors are put on the so-called black list. So far this is the only way of preventing plagiarism, because there are no other sanctions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Perverse incentives and perverse publishing practices

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The urge to publish more and its consequences

              In the era of “big science”, all researchers, academics and students are under pressure to publish more and to report more research activities for successful grant applications, academic promotion, and course graduation. To meet the ever-increasing publication activities, thousands of new publishers have sprung up globally, and the number of online and subscription journals has increased exponentially. At the same time, temptation to publish more at all costs has led to epidemics of unethical conduct and inevitable retractions, which question the validity of current evidence-base [1]. Reasons for retractions include, but not limited to fraud, plagiarism, multiple submissions and duplicate publications, violation of copyrights and ethical norms of research, and inappropriate authorship [2]. Uncovered cases of misconduct and violation of publication ethics are increasing at rapid pace due to the digitization and open access movement in the last two decades [1]. And it is expected that the landscape of publications and their indexing and citation records in bibliographic databases will change substantially in the coming years. Large amount of funding for research, publishing and archiving activities comes from pharmaceutical agencies, supporting individuals and their research and academic institutions. Too often, pharmaceutical agencies hire medical writers and professional experts for writing research reports and guidelines on drugs and medical technologies produced or promoted by the agencies. Informing readership about relationships between authors and pharmaceutical agencies is an ethical obligation, which should be regarded for the sake of transparency and safety of patients [3,4]. Non-disclosure of relevant relationships with pharma is a misconduct with far-reaching healthcare consequences that cannot be avoided even after corrections or retractions of unethical publications. The authors have to explicitly disclose any conflict at the manuscript submission by filling the structured form provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [5]. Global editorial associations keep a close eye on research and publication misconduct. For example, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has a collection of appalling cases of misconduct, which may help avoid similar cases by improving awareness among young and seasoned researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors [6]. Responsibility for accurate and unbiased research reporting lies not only with authors, but also with all other stakeholders of scientific communications. Research and academic institutions are obliged to educate their authors and to inform about publishing ethics and consequences of biased and fraudulent publications. Reviewers and science editors, in turn, have to carefully evaluate correctness of research data and transparency of authorship, contributorship, and disclosures of ethical approvals, funding, and conflicts of interests. Ethical concerns may arise at any point throughout the manuscript processing or post-publication, and if so, responsible evaluators have to consult relevant guidelines of COPE and act accordingly [7]. Each case of misconduct should be discussed in a collegiate way with all stakeholders of research publications to avoid similar cases in the future. Research misconduct may take a variety of forms, which can be minor or major. The U.S. National Science Foundation distinguished the following types of research misconduct: fabrication (reporting made-up results), falsification (manipulation of the research materials, equipment, or processes), and plagiarism (utilizing someone else’s text or ideas without appropriate crediting) [8,9]. Perhaps the most important point here is the intention, which leads to the misconduct and unethical publication (Figure 1). Intentionally misleading readership by plagiarizing large parts of previous publications, presenting fabricated data, or omitting key negative data are matters of gross misconduct, which require proper actions by reviewers, editors, and publishers. Misinterpretation of statistical data and omission of data on adverse effects of drugs are also unethical acts, misleading non-expert readership [10]. Minor forms of misconduct are text recycling due to poor language skills or “academic laziness”, which often stem from the urge to publish more, and can be prevented by sharpening language skills and properly organizing the writing work. Whether or not such a “minor” misconduct requires manuscript withdrawal or retraction depends on the intention and several other factors. In any case, relying on available guidance from COPE may help reach an ethically acceptable decision [11,12]. Figure 1 Types of research misconduct by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which may take place as a consequence of the urge to publish more. Current “obsession” with impact factors and individual impact indicators has led to the urge to produce more “groundbreaking” research data and target high-ranking scholarly journals. Authors, who publish in high-impact periodicals, are likely to attract more citations and secure more funding from grant holders. The wealthiest research grant providers prioritize widely-visible and most-impacting publications, thus forcing researchers and their institutions to publish more in top journals (Figure 1). As a result, top-ranking journals such as Science, Nature, Cell, and others primarily suffer from fraudulent and unethical publications, eventually subjected to retractions [1]. At the other extreme, authors, who wish to build up their academic profile and publish at all costs, may be tempted to circumvent the mainstream journals with tough peer review and to submit their manuscripts to the so-called predatory journals with no quality control or soft, decorative peer review (Figure 2). The main aim of such journals is to sell a space for substandard research and poorly edited papers and to attract inexperienced authors [13]. Predatory publishers may also claim that they publish journals that have certain impact indicators, often calculated by newly launched bogus impact agencies. Research and academic institutions should take an active stance against such journals, and familiarize their authors with what constitutes a quality and influential journal and endorse widely acceptable traditional and alternative impact indicators [14]. One such impact indicator is the h-index, which is universally applicable for evaluating publication activity and citability of individuals, academic departments, institutions, and countries. Its bi-dimensional origin is well fitted with the concept of publishing citable papers useful for the scientific community. Figure 2 Consequences of the urge to publish more and the role of evaluators. Authors should be aware of functional characteristics of online search platforms, bibliographic databases, and archiving hubs. Open-access publishing provides opportunities for rapid dissemination of scholarly information. However, not all online journals are indexed in evidence-based databases and are capable of properly archiving papers. Biomedical authors, who wish to address readership, interested in reading and citing their papers, should target MEDLINE-indexed journals in the first place. Publishing in journals indexed in MEDLINE and simultaneously archived in PubMed Central is an added value as the latter is an ideal platform for open-access publishing models and permanent conservation of scholarly information. Papers archived in PubMed Central can be retrieved from PubMed and Web of Knowledge search platforms. However, journal visibility in these platforms differs from indexing in MEDLINE and Web of Science bibliographic databases. Publishers should explicitly inform potential authors about correct indexing and archiving status of their journals and avoid manipulating and charging for non-indexed publications. Exploring options for disseminating scientific ideas in an ethical and well-informed academic environment is a big issue for both researchers and publishers [15]. Obviously, educating all stakeholders of scientific communications about effective research reporting, open archiving and re-using published sources, indexing journals, and calculating impact indicators is the logical way out of unethical and flawed publishing environment. Priority of well-checked and edited publications in journals indexed in relevant databases and web platforms should become a guiding point for all those who rush to publish more. Competing interests Mohammad Abdollahi (MA) is the Editor-in-Chief of DARU and chose the topic to be written based on his editorial experiences. MA is a Trustee Council Member of Committee on Publication Ethics (London, UK) and the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the COPE. Armen Yuri Gasparyan is the Chief Editor of European Science Editing and a Council Member of the European Association of Science Editors (London, UK) and the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the EASE. Authors’ contributions All authors contributed equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Iran Biomed J
                Iran. Biomed. J
                Iranian Biomedical Journal
                Pasteur Institute (Iran )
                1028-852X
                2008-823X
                July 2017
                : 21
                : 4
                : 203-204
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
                [2 ]Department of Toxicology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [3 ]Student Research Committee, Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [4 ]Toxicology and Diseases Group, Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Group, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                Article
                IBJ-21-203
                5459935
                28500725
                3f66cd04-a341-44b1-b7e5-af16a61081a9
                Copyright: © Iranian Biomedical Journal

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article