ethics

1. Responsible research publication:
international standards for authors
Ethical Considerations in the
Conduct and Reporting of
Research

2. Scientific Knowledge
 The object of research is to extend
human knowledge beyond what is
already known.
 But an individual’s knowledge enters
the domain of science only after it is
presented to others in such a fashion
that they can independently judge its
validity
 (NAP, “On Being a Scientist” 1995)

3. Introduction
 Publication is the final stage of research and therefore a
responsibility for all researchers.
 Scholarly publications are expected to provide a detailed
and permanent record of research.
 Because publications form the basis for both new
research and the application of findings, they can affect
not only the research community but also, indirectly,
society at large.
 Researchers therefore have a responsibility to ensure
that their publications are honest, clear, accurate,
complete and balanced, and should avoid misleading,
selective or ambiguous reporting.
 Journal editors also have responsibilities for ensuring
the integrity of the research literature and these are set
out in companion guidelines.

4. Publication
 Publication of results is an integral and
essential component of research.
 The University encourages all researchers to
promote their work through publishing and
other forms of dissemination.
Flow diagram of review and publication
process for a manuscript
submitted to a journal
Dale J. Benos, Jorge Fabres, John Farmer, et al Ethics and scientific publication// Adv
Physiol Educ 29: 59–74, 2005

5. What is publishable….
Journals like to publish papers that are
going to be widely read and useful to the
readers
 Papers that report “original and significant”
findings that are likely to be of interest to a
broad spectrum of its readers
 Papers that are well organized and well
written, with clear statements regarding how
the findings relate to and advance the
understanding/development of the subject
 Papers that are concise and yet complete
in their presentation of the findings

6. Distribution of ethical issues in American
Physiological Society publications (1996
through March 2004)
Dale J. Benos, Jorge Fabres, John Farmer, et al Ethics and scientific publication// Adv
Physiol Educ 29: 59–74, 2005

7. Authorship and Contributorship
 An “author” is generally considered to be someone
who has made substantive intellectual
contributions to a published study, and biomedical
authorship continues to have important academic,
social, and financial implications .
 Authorship credit should be based on
 1) substantial contributions to conception and
design, acquisition of data, or analysis and
interpretation of data;
 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and
 3) final approval of the version to be published.
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

8.  guest authors are those who do not meet
accepted authorship criteria but are
listed because of their seniority,
reputation or supposed influence
 gift authors are those who do not meet
accepted authorship criteria but are
listed as a personal favour or in return for
payment
 ghost authors are those who meet
authorship criteria but are not listed
Authorship

9. Authorship
A: average number of
authors per article
published in the research
journals of APS from 1960–
2004.
B: percentage of the total
number
of published articles in the
American Journal of
Physiology-Consolidated
(AJP),
Journal of Applied
Physiology (JAP), and
Journal of Neurophysiology
(JN) authored by either one
(OE) or
two (■) persons from 1960–
2004.
Dale J. Benos, Jorge Fabres, John Farmer, et al Ethics and scientific publication// Adv
Physiol Educ 29: 59–74, 2005

10. Contributors Listed in
Acknowledgments
 All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be
listed in an acknowledgments section.
 Editors should ask corresponding authors to declare whether they
had assistance with study design, data collection, data analysis, or
manuscript preparation. If such assistance was available, the
authors should disclose the identity of the individuals who provided
this assistance and the entity that supported it in the published
article. Financial and material support should also be
acknowledged.
 Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but
whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under
such headings as “clinical investigators” or “participating
investigators,” and their function or contribution should be
described—for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically
reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and
cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their
endorsement of the data and conclusions, these persons must give
written permission to be acknowledged.

11. Sample authorship
description/acknowledgement

Drs A, B and C designed and conducted the
study, including patient recruitment, data
collection, and data analysis. Dr A prepared
the manuscript draft with important
intellectual input from Drs B and C. All
authors approved the final manuscript. [Insert
name of organization] provided funding for
the study, statistical support in analyzing the
data with input from Drs A, B and C, and also
provided funding for editorial support. Drs A,
B and C had complete access to the study
data. We would like to thank Dr D for her
editorial support during preparation of this
manuscript.

12. Accountability and responsibility
 All authors should have read and be familiar with the reported work and
 should ensure that publications follow the principles set out in these
guidelines.
 In most cases, authors will be expected to take joint responsibility for
the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if authors take
responsibility only for certain aspects of the research and its reporting,
this should be specified in the publication.
 Authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work
promptly if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
 Authors should abide by relevant conventions, requirements, and
regulations to make materials, reagents, software or datasets available
to other researchers who request them. Researchers, institutions, and
funders should have clear policies for handling such requests. Authors
must also follow relevant journal standards. While proper
acknowledgement is expected, researchers should not demand
authorship as a condition for sharing materials.
 Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments
and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer
correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional details

13. Soundness and reliability
 The research being reported should have been conducted
in an ethical and responsible manner and follow all relevant
legislation.
 The research being reported should be sound and carefully
executed.
 Researchers should use appropriate methods of data
analysis and display (and, if needed, seek and follow
specialist advice on this).
 Authors should take collective responsibility for their work
and for the content of their publications. Researchers
should check their publications carefully at all stages to
ensure methods and findings are reported accurately.
 Authors should carefully check calculations, data
presentations, typescripts/submissions and proofs.

14. Useful Definitions:
Scientific Misconduct
“Scientific misconduct means fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, or other
practices that seriously deviate from
those that are commonly accepted within
the scientific community for proposing,
conducting or reporting research”
Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct:
A Guidance Document for Editors, January
2000, Office of Research Integrity, Office of
Public Health and Science, U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services http://ori.dhhs.gov

15. Useful Definitions:
 Plagiarism: using the ideas or words of
another person without giving
appropriate credit (Nat. Acad. Press
document)
 Self-Plagiarism: The verbatim copying or
reuse of one’s own research (IEEE
Policy statement)
Both types of plagiarism are
considered to be unacceptable
practice by most scientific

16. Honesty
 Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication,
falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (e.g.
micrographs, X-rays, pictures of electrophoresis gels) should not be modified
in a misleading way.
 Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their
findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable
reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to permit
experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
 Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient,
inconsistent or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors’
or sponsors’ hypothesis or interpretation.
 Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto publication of
findings that do not favour their product or position. Researchers should not
enter agreements that permit the research sponsor to veto or control the
publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such
as research classified by governments because of security implications).
 Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any
submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors
in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
 Authors should represent the work of others accurately in citations and
quotations.

17. Intellectual Property
Plagiarism, copyright and
intellectual property
 A definition of plagiarism from the Office of Research
Integrity:
 Plagiarism includes both the theft or misappropriation of
intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual
copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or
credit disputes.
The theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes
the unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by
a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript
review.
 All Authors are required to grant editors an exclusive
publishing license before their work can be published.
 This license also contains the warranty that the work is the
author’s original work.

18. Original Paper
Oriented Assembly of Fe3O4
Nanoparticles into Monodisperse
Hollow Single-Crystal Microspheres
Yu et al, J. Phys. Chem. B 2006,
110, 21667-21671 (Figure 3)
Plagiarized paper:
Fabrication of Monodisperse Magnetic
Fe3O4-SiO2 Nanocomposites with
Core-Shell Structures Hua Fang,*
Chun-yang Ma, Tai-li Wan, Mei Zhang,
and Wei-hai Shi J. Phys. Chem C
2007, 111, 1065-1070
Original paper:
Ultra-large-scale syntheses of monodisperse
nanocrystals, Park et al. Nature Materials,
2004, 3, 891 (Figure 3C)

19. Credit
 Citing sources of information and ideas
(also aids credibility, helps in finding out
more)
 Avoiding excessive use of others’ words
◦ Recording sources when copying items or taking
notes
◦ Placing in quotation marks, or indenting, items
used verbatim
◦ Perhaps drafting some items while not looking at
the source materials
◦ Observing copyright and obtaining needed
permissions

20. 24 MAY 2002 VOL 296 SCIENCE, p 1376

21. Other Types of Ethical Violations
 Duplicate publication/submission of
research findings; failure to inform the
editor of related papers that the author
has under consideration or “in press”
 Unrevealed conflicts of interest that
could affect the interpretation of the
findings
 Misrepresentation of research findings
- use of selective or fraudulent data to
support a hypothesis or claim

22. Originality
 Not republishing the same findings
(except under special circumstances,
with the original source cited)
 Not submitting the same manuscript to
two or more journals at once
 Not dividing one research project into
many little papers (“salami science”)

23. Balance
 New findings should be presented in the
context of previous research. The work of
others should be fairly represented. Scholarly
reviews and syntheses of existing research
should be complete, balanced, and should
include findings regardless of whether they
support the hypothesis or interpretation being
proposed.
 Editorials or opinion pieces presenting a
single viewpoint or argument should be
clearly distinguished from scholarly reviews.
 Study limitations should be addressed in
publications.

24. Transparency
 All sources of research funding, including direct and
indirect financial support, supply of equipment or
materials, and other support (such as specialist
statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed.
 Authors should disclose the role of the research
funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design,
execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
 Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-
financial interests and relationships that might be
considered likely to affect the interpretation of their
findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might
reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship
to the journal, for example if editors publish their own
research in their own journal. In addition, authors should
follow journal and institutional requirements for

25. Adherence to peer review and
publication conventions
 Authors should follow publishers’ requirements that work is not
submitted to more than one publication for consideration at the
same time.
 Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from
review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after
receiving a conditional acceptance.
 Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional
and timely manner.
 Authors should respect publishers’ requests for press embargos and
should not generally allow their findings to be reported in the press if
they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a
scholarly publication.
 Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with
publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and
press conferences) around publication. Press releases should
accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that
go further than the research findings.

26. Ethical principles: Research on
Humans and Animals
 For experiments involving human subjects, the committee
approving the experiments should be identified and the
research conducted according to the principles expressed in
the Declaration of Helsinki).
 The Authors should confirm that informed consent was
obtained from all subjects.
 Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be
obtained before the research begins and details should be
provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board,
Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing
authorities for the use of animals)
 Treatment must confirm to accepted international standards.
 Manuscript must document that the study was approved by
an ethical review board before it was done.
 Note: Research on humans tends to be broadly defined, for
example to include survey research.

27. Ethical responsibilities of
Editors and reviewers
 Maintain confidentiality
 Not to misappropriate ideas or text
 Emit reviews that are justifiable and
without bias
 Transmit information to authors in a
timely fashion
 Declare any conflict of interest

28. Peer Review
 Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an
intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific
process.
 Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts
submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the
editorial staff.
 Peer review can therefore be viewed as an important
extension of the scientific process.
 Peer review helps editors decide which manuscripts are
suitable for their journals and helps authors and editors
to improve the quality of reporting. A peer-reviewed
journal submits most of its published research articles
for outside review. The number and kinds of
manuscripts sent for review, the number of reviewers,
the reviewing procedures, and the use made of the
reviewers’ opinions may vary.

29. Conflicts of Interest
 Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a
responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to
affect their ability to present or review data objectively.
These include relevant financial (for example patent
ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, speaker's
fees), personal, political, intellectual, or religious
interests.
 Can involve
◦ Editors
◦ Peer reviewers
◦ Authors
 Can be
◦ Financial
◦ Ideological
◦ Other

30. Summary
 The research being reported should have been conducted in
an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with
all relevant legislation.
 Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly,
and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data
manipulation.
 Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly
and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed
by others.
 Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that
submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not
been published elsewhere.
 Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted
and published work.
 The authorship of research publications should accurately
reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.

31. How Journals Detect and Handle
Problem Papers
 Information received from reviewers or other
editors
 Literature search for related papers by the
author
Withdrawal of a paper from publication
Banning authors from publication in the
journal for 3-5 years and informing the co-
authors and editors of related journals of our
action
For less serious cases, placing the author on
a “watch list” for careful examination of their
submissions prior to requesting review

32. International guidelines
 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Includes
guidelines for authorship (substantive), peer review (not substantive), conflict
of interest (substantive), and redundant publications (substantive).
http://www.icmje.org/
 The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has guidelines for editors and
peer reviewers (substantive) and authorship (substantive).
http://publicationethics.org/
 The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity also has guidelines on
authorship, publication, and peer review. These are very general, not
detailed. http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html
 Scott-Lichter D, and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science
Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal
Publications. Reston, Virginia, USA: CSE; 2006.
http://www.CouncilScienceEditors.org
 On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd edition (1995):
From the US National Academies Largely for graduate students
www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/