- Email: [email protected]
Ethical publishing practices
Evidence-Based Dentistry Ethical publishing practices Background.—Not only prestige but also career progression can hinge on the publication of scientific articles in a respected peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. However, it is important that a claim of authorship comes only when the author has made an important intellectual contribution to the article. Unethical practices unfortunately occur in all areas of scientific publishing. Publishing ethics kits supplied by most major publishing companies include instructions on how they detect and prevent unethical practices. In addition, plagiarism detection software can be used to identify problems. The principal ways misconduct occurs in a scientific publishing context are through duplication of a manuscript (redundant publication), plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship conflicts. These classifications were detailed, along with detection methods. Redundant Publication.—Manuscript duplication refers to the publication of an article that substantially covers the same material as one already published. Often readers are the first to identify redundant publications. Although authors can ethically publish an expanded version of an article with the same data if they use proper citations and acknowledgements of an earlier publication, this requires obtaining permission from the journal publisher. Proper citation and resolution of copyright issues must be in place before preparing these articles. It is acceptable to reuse data to substantiate personal research hypotheses, but the proper acknowledgements are required.
of international journals overlook the occurrence of similar textual material of less than 20%, although they also consider the article’s length, the source, the distribution of the quoted material, how much was quoted, and whether it was accurately attributed to the original source before forwarding articles for review. Authors can avoid plagiarism through the use of standard English conventions. Verbatim statements from sources are offset by quotation marks, with single quotation marks for quotes within quotes. Quotations should not be altered within the context of a sentence. If a quotation is altered through the omission or addition of words, ellipsis should mark the omission and brackets should surround the addition. Limiting the use of direct quotations can also help to avoid plagiarism. Instead, the author should restate the ideas in personal phrases and terms. Previous publications may rightly be used to provoke new ideas and reveal a possible research focus. However, authentic improvements must be made to the earlier work, with credit given as appropriate, for the material to be considered novel. The formats suggested by the Modern Language Association or American Psychological Association are standards for writing about scientific research. Following the code of conduct and maintaining ethical standards are the basics for preparing a hygienic scientific database.
Another iteration of this duplication is the division of a study into several parts to increase the number of articles being published. These articles can affect the credibility of the investigators as original researchers. Although a journal with a low impact factor or one that just received its indexing service might permit this to increase the number of articles, authors should not fall into this practice.
Data Manipulation.—Data can be willfully distorted or fabricated and yield an inaccurate outcome. Sometimes they are statistically analyzed repeatedly to manipulate them until they yield a significant relationship. Selective publication of data may then be pawned off as the original study target. Such manipulation falls along a continuum from scientific fraud to carelessness. Truthfulness in reporting findings of scientific studies is essential because medical and dental research in particular can directly affect the delivery of health care, which can be a matter of life and death.
Plagiarism.—In plagiarism, the author attempts to use the ideas or work of another author without crediting that person. This extremely unethical practice is unfortunately becoming more common, but is considered comparable to stealing. The five types are copy and paste, work switch, style plagiarism, metaphor, and idea plagiarism. Text or data from other sources should be indicated by using quotation marks and citing proper references or acknowledgements. Altering words and introducing new phrases are not sufficient to make the material original. Most editorial boards
Authorship.—The authorship of an article recognizes the intellectual contribution of the individual(s) and can be personally gratifying, but it also carries the possibility of enhancing one’s career and prestige among peers. Journals outline in their authorship criteria that the author is the individual who contributes significantly to the publication. However, the definition can be altered or used as ‘‘scientific currency’’ in situations of ‘‘publish or perish.’’ Researchers may also be ‘‘gifted’’ with authorship and have little understanding of what has been published.
Volume 59
Issue 5
2014
e107
Fig.—A screen shot of a similarity check done with plagiarism detection software ‘‘iThenticate’’ (reused with permission from Paradigms). (Courtesy of Krishnan V: Etiquette in scientific publishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:577-582, 2013.)
The listing of names in biologic research follows the convention of mentioning those who were most active first and including the supervising teacher last. However, there are no clear standards, and authors listed in the middle can be overlooked. Ideally, all authors deserve fair credit regardless of the order of their appearance.
of appropriating the portion of the text copied inside their window for copy detection as their own property after a certain time. Agreements linked to these freeware programs should be carefully perused before signing on.
Authorship conflicts can be avoided by ensuring that author guidelines are followed with all collaborators. Conversations about authorship and the order of names should be open and held often. Everyone should put their contributions in writing and be prepared to clarify and correct any misunderstandings. It is also important to remain flexible with authorship because contributions can change significantly over time. If disagreements develop, they should be handled within the group, perhaps under the supervision of the laboratory administrator or other outsider. Fights for authorship not only ruin the work environment but also can compromise the quality of the research and the publication.
Clinical Significance.—The ethics governing the writing and publication of scientific research are in place to ensure that authors do not present false conclusions, claim credit that is not theirs, or manipulate findings to achieve prestige or preserve their academic standing. It is important to teach students the principles and practices that will lead them to adhere to these ethical standards. Editors and journal publishers are taking steps to find cases of publishing misconduct. They also have the power to institute consequences, such as having articles retracted. Perhaps the most important consequence is the scientific community’s loss of confidence in the intellectual contributions of those who break the rules.
Detection.—It can be difficult to detect plagiarism manually because of the thousands of publications that are available. Software developed for this purpose does not actually identify plagiarism but does indicate if the article resembles published articles with a ‘‘measure of similarity.’’ Among the programs currently available are iThenticate and ‘‘Cross-Check’’ (Fig). Some free programs can be found in Internet searches. The most familiar of these are Viper and Turnitin. However, freeware has the drawback
e108
Dental Abstracts
Krishnan V: Etiquette in scientific publishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:577-582, 2013 Reprints available from V Krishnan, Dept of Orthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Varkala, Trivandrum, Kerala State 695318, India; e-mail: [email protected]
of international journals overlook the occurrence of similar textual material of less than 20%, although they also consider the article’s length, the source, the distribution of the quoted material, how much was quoted, and whether it was accurately attributed to the original source before forwarding articles for review. Authors can avoid plagiarism through the use of standard English conventions. Verbatim statements from sources are offset by quotation marks, with single quotation marks for quotes within quotes. Quotations should not be altered within the context of a sentence. If a quotation is altered through the omission or addition of words, ellipsis should mark the omission and brackets should surround the addition. Limiting the use of direct quotations can also help to avoid plagiarism. Instead, the author should restate the ideas in personal phrases and terms. Previous publications may rightly be used to provoke new ideas and reveal a possible research focus. However, authentic improvements must be made to the earlier work, with credit given as appropriate, for the material to be considered novel. The formats suggested by the Modern Language Association or American Psychological Association are standards for writing about scientific research. Following the code of conduct and maintaining ethical standards are the basics for preparing a hygienic scientific database.
Another iteration of this duplication is the division of a study into several parts to increase the number of articles being published. These articles can affect the credibility of the investigators as original researchers. Although a journal with a low impact factor or one that just received its indexing service might permit this to increase the number of articles, authors should not fall into this practice.
Data Manipulation.—Data can be willfully distorted or fabricated and yield an inaccurate outcome. Sometimes they are statistically analyzed repeatedly to manipulate them until they yield a significant relationship. Selective publication of data may then be pawned off as the original study target. Such manipulation falls along a continuum from scientific fraud to carelessness. Truthfulness in reporting findings of scientific studies is essential because medical and dental research in particular can directly affect the delivery of health care, which can be a matter of life and death.
Plagiarism.—In plagiarism, the author attempts to use the ideas or work of another author without crediting that person. This extremely unethical practice is unfortunately becoming more common, but is considered comparable to stealing. The five types are copy and paste, work switch, style plagiarism, metaphor, and idea plagiarism. Text or data from other sources should be indicated by using quotation marks and citing proper references or acknowledgements. Altering words and introducing new phrases are not sufficient to make the material original. Most editorial boards
Authorship.—The authorship of an article recognizes the intellectual contribution of the individual(s) and can be personally gratifying, but it also carries the possibility of enhancing one’s career and prestige among peers. Journals outline in their authorship criteria that the author is the individual who contributes significantly to the publication. However, the definition can be altered or used as ‘‘scientific currency’’ in situations of ‘‘publish or perish.’’ Researchers may also be ‘‘gifted’’ with authorship and have little understanding of what has been published.
Volume 59
Issue 5
2014
e107
Fig.—A screen shot of a similarity check done with plagiarism detection software ‘‘iThenticate’’ (reused with permission from Paradigms). (Courtesy of Krishnan V: Etiquette in scientific publishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:577-582, 2013.)
The listing of names in biologic research follows the convention of mentioning those who were most active first and including the supervising teacher last. However, there are no clear standards, and authors listed in the middle can be overlooked. Ideally, all authors deserve fair credit regardless of the order of their appearance.
of appropriating the portion of the text copied inside their window for copy detection as their own property after a certain time. Agreements linked to these freeware programs should be carefully perused before signing on.
Authorship conflicts can be avoided by ensuring that author guidelines are followed with all collaborators. Conversations about authorship and the order of names should be open and held often. Everyone should put their contributions in writing and be prepared to clarify and correct any misunderstandings. It is also important to remain flexible with authorship because contributions can change significantly over time. If disagreements develop, they should be handled within the group, perhaps under the supervision of the laboratory administrator or other outsider. Fights for authorship not only ruin the work environment but also can compromise the quality of the research and the publication.
Clinical Significance.—The ethics governing the writing and publication of scientific research are in place to ensure that authors do not present false conclusions, claim credit that is not theirs, or manipulate findings to achieve prestige or preserve their academic standing. It is important to teach students the principles and practices that will lead them to adhere to these ethical standards. Editors and journal publishers are taking steps to find cases of publishing misconduct. They also have the power to institute consequences, such as having articles retracted. Perhaps the most important consequence is the scientific community’s loss of confidence in the intellectual contributions of those who break the rules.
Detection.—It can be difficult to detect plagiarism manually because of the thousands of publications that are available. Software developed for this purpose does not actually identify plagiarism but does indicate if the article resembles published articles with a ‘‘measure of similarity.’’ Among the programs currently available are iThenticate and ‘‘Cross-Check’’ (Fig). Some free programs can be found in Internet searches. The most familiar of these are Viper and Turnitin. However, freeware has the drawback
e108
Dental Abstracts
Krishnan V: Etiquette in scientific publishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:577-582, 2013 Reprints available from V Krishnan, Dept of Orthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Varkala, Trivandrum, Kerala State 695318, India; e-mail: [email protected]