25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Research ethics for young researchers

      letter

      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

          Sir, Ethical issues and its violation in research are well documented in the history of research and have been documented in the recent research ventures around the world.[1 2 3] Young researchers knowingly, unknowingly violate research ethics (RE) and become the victims of research misconduct. Scientific research is built on a foundation of trust. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to clarify and transmit the values associated with ethical scientific conduct. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human/animals, public and society. RE will help them to build a clean scientific attitude, to boost their professional morals and social value for a positive contribution to society. RE involves the applications of fundamental ethical principles to a variety area of scientific research such as planning, conduct, reporting of research involving animal/human subject experiments, proper publication process, and various aspects of research misconduct. The code and policies of RE that need to be followed by the young researcher are — honesty, objectivity, competence, integrity, openness, confidentially, respect for colleagues, honest publication, good mentoring, respect for intellectual property, legality, animal care, human subject protection, non-discrimination and social responsibility.[4 5 6 7] Publication is one of the most controversial subjects of RE, where mentor and mentee face difficult situations that lead to research misconduct. The young researchers should follow 10 simple rules of research publication: (1) Review the relevant literature, analyze them critically; (2) be objective with your work that you intend to publish; (3) decide early where to publish (a peer review journal with good impact factor should be preferred) with prior consultation with your mentor; (4) do not compromise with the quality of work; (5) submit the proposed publication to mentor for review; (6) take care of the language, figures, table, acknowledgement, ethical issues, conflict of interest, references; (7) involve your co-authors in the preparation and publication of manuscript; (8) use the critical comments of reviewers to improve the quality of your paper; (9) learn to accept rejection and (10) do not give up after rejection.[8] According to publication ethics, the mentor decides the order of authorship, i.e., who will be the first, second author. In many cases, the mentor places the researcher in the first position whose contributions are maximum in the work. The mentor is the correspondence author in all the publications of a laboratory. A co-author shares responsibility for the scientific integrity of a good paper at different stages of the publication by providing key ideas, implementation, running of experiments, collection of data, analyze data, write up and corrections. It is important to remember that gift of an authorship is an offence. People who made a contribution that does not merit co-authorship must be acknowledged. Acknowledgement are made to those who has provided key ideas, resources for the experiments, helped in typesetting, illustrations, and of course the funding agencies. My advice to the young researchers in publication – it is not the impact factor what is important, but it is an honest publication that you will enjoy the rest of your research career.[9 10] Research misconduct is defined as fabrication (altered data), falsification (created data), plagiarism (borrowing ideas/words without proper attribution). Several examples of research misconduct that are observed are – failure to keep good research records, not reporting on adverse drug effects, wasting/stealing animal in research, stealing supplies/books/data/computer programs, unauthorized copies of papers, acceptance of bribes from suppliers, etc.[11] It has been observed that researchers publish or submit the same paper to different journals, present the same paper at different conferences, include colleagues or relatives on a paper as co-author without any contributions, not inform the collaborator about paper or patent, discuss confidential data/report/paper with colleagues, bypassing the mentor and publishing the paper without prior permission from mentor, bypass due acknowledgement, use inappropriate statistics to enhance the level of significance, publish fabricated data, bypass peer review process and announce results through media or press.[12] Plagiarism is another important area of research misconduct observed. It is a word derived from the Latin word for kidnapping. It involves the appropriation of author's work as one's own without the actual author permission. In other words, burrowing a sentence or two, without proper acknowledgement is plagiarism. Plagiarism could be easily avoided through citation. According to some authors, falsification involves willful misinterpretation of data that was never produced by the authors.[13 14] Competition for job promotion, grants, academic rewards and similar other factors encourage plagiarism. It is the responsibility of the society, the teachers, mentors, and academicians to identify the cause and combat such fraud. This could be achieved through RE awareness program, socio-psychological analysis and counseling, good mentoring, self-reflection and spirituality. Good mentoring is an effective tool in promoting ethical conduct in science and research. Effective mentoring is essential to promote a positive attitude and understanding of the responsible conduct of research.[15 16] Promotion of ethical conduct in research is a shared responsibility of the academicians, research institutes and the society. Institutional responsibilities include formation of research ethical cell, monitoring and sensitizing the issue of RE through awareness program, seminar/symposium, course study, interactive class lectures, and research on RE, appropriate measures to address violation of ethics and development of inter-/intra-departmental and institutional research integrity.[17] Ethics education should help young researchers understand the rules of professional behavior in research, to known their rights and to fulfill their responsibilities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ethics and scientific publication.

            This article summarizes the major categories of ethical violations encountered during submission, review, and publication of scientific articles. We discuss data fabrication and falsification, plagiarism, redundant and duplicate publication, conflict of interest, authorship, animal and human welfare, and reviewer responsibility. In each section, pertinent historical background and citation of relevant regulations and statutes are provided. Furthermore, a specific case(s) derived from actual situations is(are) presented. These cases were chosen to highlight the complexities that investigators and journals must face when dealing with ethical issues. A series of discussion questions follow each case. It is our hope that by increasing education and awareness of ethical matters relevant to scientific investigation and publication, deviations from appropriate conduct will be reduced.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published

              The student council (http://www.iscbsc.org/) of the International Society for Computational Biology asked me to present my thoughts on getting published in the field of computational biology at the Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology conference held in Detroit in late June of 2005. Close to 200 bright young souls (and a few not so young) crammed into a small room for what proved to be a wonderful interchange among a group of whom approximately one-half had yet to publish their first paper. The advice I gave that day I have modified and present as ten rules for getting published. Rule 1: Read many papers, and learn from both the good and the bad work of others. It is never too early to become a critic. Journal clubs, where you critique a paper as a group, are excellent for having this kind of dialogue. Reading at least two papers a day in detail (not just in your area of research) and thinking about their quality will also help. Being well read has another potential major benefit—it facilitates a more objective view of one's own work. It is too easy after many late nights spent in front of a computer screen and/or laboratory bench to convince yourself that your work is the best invention since sliced bread. More than likely it is not, and your mentor is prone to falling into the same trap, hence rule 2. Rule 2: The more objective you can be about your work, the better that work will ultimately become. Alas, some scientists will never be objective about their own work, and will never make the best scientists—learn objectivity early, the editors and reviewers have. Rule 3: Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work. The quality of the editorial board is an early indicator of the review process. Look at the masthead of the journal in which you plan to publish. Outstanding editors demand and get outstanding reviews. Put your energy into improving the quality of the manuscript before submission. Ideally, the reviews will improve your paper. But they will not get to imparting that advice if there are fundamental flaws. Rule 4: If you do not write well in the English language, take lessons early; it will be invaluable later. This is not just about grammar, but more importantly comprehension. The best papers are those in which complex ideas are expressed in a way that those who are less than immersed in the field can understand. Have you noticed that the most renowned scientists often give the most logical and simply stated yet stimulating lectures? This extends to their written work as well. Note that writing clearly is valuable, even if your ultimate career does not hinge on producing good scientific papers in English language journals. Submitted papers that are not clearly written in good English, unless the science is truly outstanding, are often rejected or at best slow to publish since they require extensive copyediting. Rule 5: Learn to live with rejection. A failure to be objective can make rejection harder to take, and you will be rejected. Scientific careers are full of rejection, even for the best scientists. The correct response to a paper being rejected or requiring major revision is to listen to the reviewers and respond in an objective, not subjective, manner. Reviews reflect how your paper is being judged—learn to live with it. If reviewers are unanimous about the poor quality of the paper, move on—in virtually all cases, they are right. If they request a major revision, do it and address every point they raise both in your cover letter and through obvious revisions to the text. Multiple rounds of revision are painful for all those concerned and slow the publishing process. Rule 6: The ingredients of good science are obvious—novelty of research topic, comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature, good data, good analysis including strong statistical support, and a thought-provoking discussion. The ingredients of good science reporting are obvious—good organization, the appropriate use of tables and figures, the right length, writing to the intended audience—do not ignore the obvious. Be objective about these ingredients when you review the first draft, and do not rely on your mentor. Get a candid opinion by having the paper read by colleagues without a vested interest in the work, including those not directly involved in the topic area. Rule 7: Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what questions to pursue. Some would argue that this places too much emphasis on publishing, but it could also be argued that it helps define scope and facilitates hypothesis-driven science. The temptation of novice authors is to try to include everything they know in a paper. Your thesis is/was your kitchen sink. Your papers should be concise, and impart as much information as possible in the least number of words. Be familiar with the guide to authors and follow it, the editors and reviewers do. Maintain a good bibliographic database as you go, and read the papers in it. Rule 8: Become a reviewer early in your career. Reviewing other papers will help you write better papers. To start, work with your mentors; have them give you papers they are reviewing and do the first cut at the review (most mentors will be happy to do this). Then, go through the final review that gets sent in by your mentor, and where allowed, as is true of this journal, look at the reviews others have written. This will provide an important perspective on the quality of your reviews and, hopefully, allow you to see your own work in a more objective way. You will also come to understand the review process and the quality of reviews, which is an important ingredient in deciding where to send your paper. Rule 9: Decide early on where to try to publish your paper. This will define the form and level of detail and assumed novelty of the work you are doing. Many journals have a presubmission enquiry system available—use it. Even before the paper is written, get a sense of the novelty of the work, and whether a specific journal will be interested. Rule 10: Quality is everything. It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than multiple papers in lesser journals. Increasingly, it is harder to hide the impact of your papers; tools like Google Scholar and the ISI Web of Science are being used by tenure committees and employers to define metrics for the quality of your work. It used to be that just the journal name was used as a metric. In the digital world, everyone knows if a paper has little impact. Try to publish in journals that have high impact factors; chances are your paper will have high impact, too, if accepted. When you are long gone, your scientific legacy is, in large part, the literature you left behind and the impact it represents. I hope these ten simple rules can help you leave behind something future generations of scientists will admire. 
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Pharmacol
                Indian J Pharmacol
                IJPharm
                Indian Journal of Pharmacology
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0253-7613
                1998-3751
                Sep-Oct 2013
                : 45
                : 5
                : 540-541
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Physiology, Lab of Toxinology and Experimental Pharmacodynamics, Rajabazar Science College, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
                [1 ]Drug Development Diagnostics and Biotechnology Division, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Prof. Antony Gomes, E-mail: gomesantony@ 123456hotmail.com
                Article
                IJPharm-45-540
                10.4103/0253-7613.117775
                3793537
                24130401
                c3716015-db61-43f7-b711-c787ee5f82f2
                Copyright: © Indian Journal of Pharmacology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Letters to the Editor

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article