Unit 1 Philosophy & ethics

1. Introduction to philosophy: definition, nature & scope, concept, branches

2. Ethics: definition, moral philosophy, nature of moral judgments & reactions
Intro to philosophy:
Definition: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems such as those connected with existence,
knowledge, values, reason, mind & language.
It is the rational attempt to formulate, understand & answer fundamental questions.
Every problem has a theory & Philosophy is a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.
Example:
Problem Theory
Why water & oil not mixed up?  Water is more dense (heavier) than oil
Nature & scope:
1. Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life & the universe.
2. Philosophy is a process of reflecting on & criticizing our most deeply held conceptions & beliefs.
To philosophize is not merely to read & know philosophy; there are skills of argumentation to be mastered,
techniques of analysis to be employed & a body of material to be appropriated such that we become able to think
philosophically. Philosophers are reflective & critical.
3. Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences & human experience into some kind of
consistent world view. Philosophers wish to see life, not with the specialized slant (slope) of the scientist or the
businessperson or the artist, but with the overall view of someone cognizant of life as a totality.
4. Philosophy is the logical analysis of language & the clarification of the meaning of words & concepts.
All philosophers used the method of analysis & wanted to clarify the meaning of terms & the use of language.
Some philosophers see this as the main task of philosophy & a few claim this is the only legitimate function of
philosophy.
5. Philosophy is a group of constant problems & for which philosophers always required answers.
A philosopher pushes its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence. Some of the philosophical
questions raised in the past have been answered in a manner satisfactory to the majority of philosophers.
Importance of philosophy:
1. The study of philosophy enables us to think carefully & clearly a/b important issues.
2. In studying philosophy, we learn to take a step back from our everyday thinking & to explain the deeper,
bigger question which underpins our thought.
3. The focus in the study of philosophy is to learn not wht to believe, but how to think.
4. Studying philosophy sharpens ur analytical abilities, enabling u to identify & evaluate the strengths &
weakness in any position.
5. It sharpens ur ability to construct & clear rational arguments of ur own.
6. It prompts u to work across disciplinary boundaries & to think flexible & creatively a/b problems which do
not present immediate solutions.
7. Because philosophy is an activity as much a body of knowledge, it also develops ur ability to think & work
independently
Theory types:
1. Deductive - A deductive approach is concerned with “developing a hypothesis (or hypotheses) based on
existing theory, and then designing a research strategy to test the hypothesis”
2. Meaningful learning - learned information is completely understood and can now be used to make
connections with other previously known knowledge, helping in further understanding
3. Predictive - Develop theories based on their observations. Validate their theories using existing data and
finally, use these theories to predict the future.
4. Causal - is a progressive and controversial theory based upon cause and effect
5. General – refers to general system theory.
1
Branches of philosophy:
a) Metaphysics investigates the nature, structure and value of reality. It is concerned with answering the
questions about identity and the world. The name is derived from the Greek words, Meta which means
beyond or after, and Physika which means physics.
b) Epistemology: Epistemology literally means “science of knowledge.” It deals with the definition of knowledge
and its scope and limitations.
c) Ethics (moral philosophy): It is concerned with questions on morality and values and how they apply to
various situations. It can be divided into the branches of
 meta-ethics
 normative ethics
 applied ethics.
d) Social Philosophy: It is the thoughtful consideration of human society. It gives insight into the actual activities
of human beings in the society. It is the study of questions about social behavior and interpretations of society
and social institutions in terms of ethical values.
e) Aesthetics(அழகியல்): It deals with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation
of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes
called judgments of sentiments and taste.

Ethics / Moral philosophy

Definition
 The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves organizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right
and wrong behavior.
 It is concerned with questions on morality and values and how they apply to various situations.
 Ethics seeks to understand the basis of morals, how they develop and how they are and should be followed.

 Approaches / Branch of ethics

 meta-ethics
 normative ethics
 applied ethics.
 Meta-ethics- investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely
social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to
these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments,
and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
 Normative ethics - takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and
wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we
should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
 Applied ethics - involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights,
environmental concerns, capital punishment, or nuclear war.
2
Nature of moral judgments & reactions: It is refer to the rightness or wrongness of specific acts or policies
According to Mackenzie, moral judgment is not merely to state the nature of some object, but to compare it with a
standard and to pronounce it to be good or evil, right or wrong
(1) What input information guides moral judgments? and
(2) What psychological processes generate these judgments?
Judging the morality of behavior is critical for a well-functioning social group.
To ensure fair and effective interactions among its members, and to ultimately promote cooperation, groups and
individuals must be able to identify instances of wrongdoing and flag them for subsequent correction and
punishment.

Unit 2 (scientific conduct)

1. Ethics with respect to science & research
2. Intellectual honesty & research integrity
3. Science misconducts : Falsification, Fabrication & plagiarism(FFP)
4. Redundant publications: duplicate & overlapping publications, salami slicing
5. Selective reporting & misrepresentation of data.
What are the ethics should follow for the science and research
Honesty: Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or
misrepresent data.
Objectivity: Attempt to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel
decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research.
Integrity: Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.
Carefulness: Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of
your peers. Keep good records of research activities.
Social Responsibility: Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public
education, and advocacy.
Non-Discrimination: Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or
other factors that are not related to their scientific competence and integrity.
Competence: Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education
and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.
Legality: Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.
Intellectual honesty, Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual honesty (அறிவுசார் நேர்மை):
Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually
honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth.
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which
can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
 Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with detection of truth;
 Information and relevant facts are not purposefully omitted even when such things may disagree with
one's hypothesis
 Facts are presented in an unbiased manner and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one
view over another;
 References or earlier work re acknowledged where possible and plagiarism is avoided.
Positive Behaviour Indicators: Negetive Behaviour Indicators
 Walks before talk; Preaches after practice.  Moves with changing winds.
 Displays and encourages purity for data  Misleads in any form, directly or indirectly
correctness.  Agrees "publicly" but disagrees "privately".
 Adheres to commitments in all areas.  Promises what is known cannot be done.
 Displays courage of confidence.  Gets influenced by seniority; Dilutes
3
  Displays the courage to disagree when Company's interest if pursued by seniors.
necessary.  Is a silent viewer for violation of company
 Observes and promotes openness and laws and policy
trustworthiness.  Talk ills of people behind their back.
 Always keeps company and professionalism
above self-interest.
Intellectual Integrity (அறிவார்ந்த ஒருமைப்பாடு):
 Intellectual integrity is the discipline of striving to be thorough and honest to learn the truth or to reach the
best decision possible in a given situation.
 Research integrity is about the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism in an
ethically robust manner.
 It is very important because it creates trust and trust is at the heart of the research process.
 Researchers must be able to trust each other's work and they must also be trusted by society
Research Misconduct/ research Integrity - Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism and
misrepresentation of data
Falsification:
 Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that
the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
 Manipulation of images or representations. 
 Changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
 Presenting false transcripts or references in application for a program.
 Submitting work which is not your own or was written by someone else.
 Falsification involves making
scientifically justified.
 Most commonly with the intention of improving the results or removing results that do not fit the hypothesis.

Fabrication:
 Making up results
form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread
acceptance, but are actually fake, and/or do not support the argument.
 Construction or addition of data, observations, or characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of
data or running of experiments.
 Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Misrepresentation of data:
 Communicating honestly reported data in a deceptive manner
 Eliminate (or trim) outliers when ‘cleaning up’ raw data.
 Drawing unwarranted conclusion from data
 Creating unreliable graphs of figures
Types of Misrepresentation:
a. False misrepresentation is a statement made dishonestly with the intention to fraud.
b. Negligent misrepresentation The maker of the statement is careless (negligent) about the facts.
c. Innocent misrepresentation  The maker of the statement honestly believes that the statement is true.
Plagiarism:
 Most common form of research misconduct
 The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words as one’s own in whole or in part
without acknowledging the author or obtaining his or her permission.
Using or representing the work of others as your own work represents plagiarism, even if committed
unintentionally.
Common forms of plagiarism:
4
• Submitting someone's work as their own.
• Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations.
• Re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources.
• Using quotations, but not citing the source.
• Interweaving various sources together in the work without citing.
• Citing some, but not all passages that should be cited.
• Melding together cited and uncited sections of the piece.
• Providing proper citations, but fails to change the structure and wording of the borrowed ideas enough.
• Inaccurately citing the source.
• Relying too heavily on other people's work. Fails to bring original thought into the text.
To avoid plagiarism:
1. Use online tools to check for plagiarism – For example Turnit, Grammerly, Iauthenticate
2. Provide links you have referred to
3. Write in your own words.
Duplicate submission and redundant publication
Publication overlapping: the presentation of redundant ideas or data in multiple papers by the same authors
Duplicate submission: This refers to the practice of submitting the same study to two journals or publishing more or
less the same study in two journals. These submissions/publications can be nearly simultaneous or years later.
Redundant publication (or) Salami publishing:
This refers to the situation that one study is split into several parts and submitted to two or more journals.
Or the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or
justification.
“Self-plagiarism” is considered a form of redundant publication. It concerns recycling or borrowing content
from previous work without citation.
This practice is widespread and might be unintentional.
Selective reporting bias is when results from scientific research are deliberately not fully or accurately reported, in
order to suppress negative or undesirable findings. 
UNIT 3 (publication ethics)
1. Publication ethics: definition, introduction & improve
2. Best practices/ standards setting initiatives & guidelines: COPE,WAWE,etc..
3. COI Conflict of Interest
4. Publication Misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behavior & vice versa, types
5. Violation of publication ethics, authorship & contributorship
6. Identification of publication misconduct, complaints & appeals.
7. Predatory publishers & journals

5
 Publication ethics: definition,
introduction & importance
Publication ethics : Ethical standards for
publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific
publications, public trust in scientific findings,
and that people receive credit for their ideas.
It is important to avoid:
a. Data fabrication (research fraud) and
falsification (data manipulation): Data
fabrication means the researcher did not
actually do the study, but made up data.
Data falsification means the researcher did
the experiment, but then changed some of
the data. Both of these practices make
people distrust scientists. If the public is
mistrustful of science then it will be less willing to provide funding support.
b. Plagiarism: Taking the ideas and work of others without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest.
Copying even one sentence from someone else's manuscript, or even one of your own that has
previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism-use your own words
instead.
c. Multiple submissions (simultaneous submission): It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more
than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can
damage the reputation of journals if published in more than one.
d. Duplicate Publication: Submitting a new manuscript containing the same hypotheses, data, discussion
points, and/or conclusions as a previously published manuscript is called as duplicate publication. This
is similar to plagiarism, but instead of copying phrases verbatim, the same data, images, and study
hypothesis are replicated in another paper.
e. Redundant publications (or 'salami' publications): This means publishing many very similar manuscripts
based on the same experiment. It can make readers less likely to pay attention to your manuscripts.
f. Self-Citation: Citing one's own published work in subsequent papers that are out of context to the
research being reported is referred to as self-citation.
g. Improper author contribution or attribution: All listed authors must have made a significant scientific
contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone
who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians. Do not
“gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the paper.
h. Non disclosure of COI: Conflicts of interest, also called as competing interests, are defined as financial,
personal, social or other interests that directly or indirectly influence the conduct of the author with
respect to the particular manuscript. Having competing interests in a product or device under
consideration is not considered unethical, however, failure to disclose such hidden interests severely
put at risk the outcomes reported in the paper.
i. Whistle blowing: Allegations of suspected misconduct that have specific, detailed evidence to support
the claim should be investigated appropriately, whether they are raised anonymously or by named
“whistle-blowers.”
j. Selective reporting bias is when results from scientific research are deliberately not fully or accurately
reported, in order to suppress negative or undesirable findings. 
Best practices/standards setting initiatives & guidelines: COPE, WAME, etc
Who provides the guidelines for editors?

6
How to handle
publication
misconduct ?
How to handle
publication
misconduct ?

7
How to handle
publication
misconduct ?
How to handle publication misconduct ?
I) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

An international
forum for editors
and publishers

8
of peer-reviewed
journals
 An international forum for editors & publishers of peer-reviewed journals.

It provides “code of
conduct”
that
o define publication
ethics

9
o advises editors on
how to
handle cases of
research
& publication
[1,2
misconduct
 It provide code of conduct that
 Define publication ethics
 Advises editors on how to handle cases of research & publication misconducts
The Core Practices were developed in 2017, replacing the Code of Conduct. They are applicable to all involved in
publishing scholarly literature: editors and their journals, publishers, and institutions.
COPE provides
 advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases
of research and publication misconduct
 a forum for its members to discuss individual cases.
COPE does not investigate individual cases but encourages editors to ensure that cases are investigated by the
appropriate authorities.
All COPE members are expected to apply COPE principles of publication ethics outlined in the core practices.
1. Allegations of misconduct: Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations; however
they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct
pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers.
2. Authorship and contributorship: Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work
and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes
for managing potential disputes

10
3. Complaints and appeals: Journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the
journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher
4. Conflicts of interest / Competing interests: There must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes
for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers, whether identified before
or after publication
5. Data and reproducibility: Journals should include policies on data availability and encourage the use of reporting
guidelines and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline
6. Ethical oversight: Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication,
publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using
human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices
7. Intellectual property:All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be
clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers.
Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration. What constitutes
plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified
8. Journal management: A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential, including the business
model, policies, processes and software for efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the
efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff
9. Peer review processes: All peer review processes must be transparently described and well managed. Journals
should provide training for editors and reviewers and have policies on diverse aspects of peer review, especially
with respect to adoption of appropriate models of review and processes for handling conflicts of interest, appeals
and disputes that may arise in peer review
10. Post-publication discussions and corrections: Journals must allow debate post publication either on their site,
through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. They must have mechanisms for
correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication
II) World Association of Medical Editors (WAME):

A nonprofit
voluntary
association of
editors 11
 of peer-reviewed
medical journals
from countries
throughout the
world.
A nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer reviewed medical journals from countries throughout the
journal.
WAME is a global nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster
cooperation and communication among editors; improve editorial standards; promote professionalism in medical
editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation; and encourage research on the principles and practice
of medical editing. WAME develops policies and recommendations of best practices for medical journal editors and
has a syllabus for editors that members are encouraged to follow.
Policies: Policies for Medical Journal Editors, prepared by the WAME Ethics and Policy Committee (formerly the
Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy Committees)
WAME encourages those who are qualified and interested to translate WAME policy into languages other than
English (the language of record for WAME policies to date). As a service to members, WAME will post links and/or
copies of such translations on the WAME Website. However, WAME does not have the resources to assure the
accuracy of such translations.
a. Ethics and Professionalism:
 Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
 Professionalism Code of Conduct for Medical Journal Editors
 Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals
 The Relationship Between Journal Editors-in-Chief and Owners (formerly titled Editorial Independence)
b. Authors
12
  Authorship
 Ghost Writing Initiated by Commercial Companies
 Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals
c. Conflicts of Interest
 Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals
 WAME Editorial: Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals: The World Association of Medical
Editors Position on a Challenging Problem
d. Global Health and Politics
 Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions
 Promoting Global Health
 WAME Editorial: Promoting Global Health: The World Association of Medical Editors Position on Editors’
Responsibility
e. Peer Review
 Definition of a Peer-Reviewed Journal
 Peer Reviewer Selection and Contact to Prevent Peer Review Manipulation by Authors
f. Other Publication-related Issues
 Impact Factor
 The Registration of Clinical Trials
g. Policy Archives
The following policies have been incorporated into subsequent policies.
 Free Journal Access for Poor Nations, superceded by Promoting Global Health
 The Responsibilities of Medical Editors, superceded by Professionalism Code of Conduct

III) Open Access Journals (DOAJ, https://doaj.org)

The mission of the DOAJ is

to maintain and develop a source of reliable information about open access scholarly journals on the web;
to verify that entries on the list comply with reasonable standards;
to increase the visibility, dissemination, discoverability and attraction of open access journals;
to enable scholars, libraries, universities, research funders and other stakeholders to benefit from the
information and services provided;
to facilitate the integration of open access journals into library and aggregator services;
to assist, where possible, publishers and their journals to meet reasonable digital publishing standards; and
to support the transition of the system of scholarly communication and publishing into a model that serves
science, higher education, industry, innovation, societies and the people. Through this work, DOAJ will cooperate
and collaborate with all interested parties working toward these objectives.

IV) Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA, https://oaspa.org/)

OASPA is a trade association that was established in 2008 in order to represent the interests of Open Access (OA)
publishers globally across all disciplines. By encouraging collaboration in developing appropriate business models,
tools and standards to support OA publishing, OASPA aims to help ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for
the benefit of its members and the scholarly communities they serve. This mission is carried out through
exchanging information, setting standards, advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of
innovation.

13
 on Publication
Ethics (COPE)
Conflict of Interest: (கருத்து வேற்றுமை)
 A competing interest, also known as a ‘conflict of interest’, can occur when you have a financial, commercial,
legal, or professional relationship with other organizations, or with the people working with them, that could
influence your research.
 Examples of financial competing interests include (but are not limited to): Grants from an entity paid to the
author or organization
 Examples of non-financial competing interests include : Involvement in legal action related to the work.
 COI can happen at any stage in the research cycle, including during the experimentation phase, while a
manuscript is being written, or during the process of turning a manuscript into a published article.
 Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or prevent someone from being involved
in the review process. However, they must be declared.
 Published articles may need to be re-assessed, have a corrigendum published, or in serious cases be
retracted.
 A clear declaration of all possible conflicts allows others to make informed decisions about the work and its
review process.
 If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and
the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum ( திருத்தப் பட வேண்டிய தவறு) or reassess
the review process.
 editors, board members, and staff who are involved with decisions about publication should declare their
interests
 Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed, including the period that these statements should
cover. Editors should ask authors to describe relevant funding, including the purpose of the funding , and to
describe relevant patents, stocks, and shares that they own.
 Editors should publish authors’ conflicts of interest whenever they are relevant, or a statement of their
absence.
 If authors state that there are no conflicts of interest, editors should publish a confirmation to this effect
 Editors should manage peer reviewers’ conflicts of interest
 Conflicts include the following:

1. Financial — funding and other payments, goods and services received or expected by the authors relating
to the subject of the work or from an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
2. Affiliations — being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with an
interest in the outcome of the work
3. Intellectual property — patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization
4. Personal — friends, family, relationships, and other close personal connections
14
 5. Ideology — beliefs or activism, for example, political or religious, relevant to the work
6. Academic — competitors or someone whose work is critiqued (விமர்சிக்கப்பட்டது)

Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical

behavior & vise versa, types
Publication misconduct – Unethical behavior / Research Integrity/
Causes of Unethical behavior / problems that leads to Unethical behavior
 Desire to see voluminous curriculum vitae.
 Promotions & academic advancement
 Desire of grant sanctioning
 Competition among the colleagues
 To prove professional supremacy
 To become guide/internal or external examiners
 Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism(FFP)
 Salami publication, Duplicate publication, Simultaneous multiple submission ,Selective reporting,
 Breach of confidentiality, Uninformed consent, Non disclosure of COI
 Authorship: Another major cause of unethical behavior.
Types of Research Misconduct and (breach) Violations of Publication Ethics ,
authorship & contributorship
 Failure to reveal:
A financial COI
Redundant publication
Gift/ghost authorship
Misrepresenting the status of the publication in the references, such as claiming that a paper is “in press”
 Plagiarism, Salami slicing, Gift authorship, Ghost authorship, Duplicate publication, Selective reporting,
Fabrication, Falsification, Breach of confidentiality, Uninformed consent, Simultaneous multiple submission,
Non disclosure of COI
 Authorship & contributorship:
Most of the journal suggesting that credit for authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or
more of the following categories:
(1)conception and design of the experiment,
(2)execution of the experiment and collection and storage of the supporting data,
(3)analysis and interpretation of the primary data, and
(4)preparation and revision of the manuscript.
1. Gift authorship: Naming a senior or junior colleague as an author with the understanding, explicit or
implicit, that the other party will do the same at some point.
2. Ghost Authorship: It is referred to denial of authorship of individuals who played an effective part in the
work & were qualified for authorship i.e one’s authorship will not be credited and will be intentionally
hidden.
3. Honorary authorship: Naming senior and often executive or influential members of one’s department or
the institution where research occurred who may have helped secure funding and may be able to do so
again.
4. Marketplace authorship: Buying or selling authorship of academic manuscripts, regardless of whether the
manuscripts have already been accepted for publication, typically for a real reputational or material
advantage.
5. Guest authorship: Inclusion of senior or high-profile authors in an attempt to improve chances of
publication and/or the impact of the publication.
15
 6. Coercive (கட்டாயப்படுத்துதல்) authorship/ Pressured Authorship : A senior researcher forcing a
junior researcher to include a voluntary, gift, or guest author

Predatory publishers & journals

Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees —
without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval
Predatory journal identification:
1. Always check the website thoroughly: Poor website: The publisher has poorly maintained websites including
dead links, misspellings & grammatical errors on the website. The publisher makes unauthorized use of licensed
images on their website.
2. Check if the journal is a member of DOAJ, COPE, OASPA, or STM
3. Check the journal’s contact information
4. Research the editorial board
5. Take a look at their peer review process & publication timelines
6. Read through past issues of the journal: Re-publish papers already published in other venues without providing
appropriate credits.
7. No ethical approvals, Lack of transparency, Fake impact factor, Prominent language errors, Poor website, Rapid
publication
8. Author fees Predatory journals profit from author fees, often from authors who cannot afford the fees required
by more reputable pay-for-publication journals
9. No quality check and No peer review : Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control
10. Using ISSN and DOI improperly and check the impact factor
DOI(Digital Object Identifier) – Unique identifying number for a document published online

ISSN – International standard serial number – internationally accepted code which identifies the title of serial
publications ( journal, magazine, annual report, etc..)

11. Journal Indexing: Journals included in an index are considered of higher quality than journals that are not.
Example: Scopus, Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Google scholar
Unit 4 (open access publishing)
Open access publications& initiatives
 Open access (OP) - publications are freely available online to all at no cost and with limited restrictions with
regards reuse.
 The unrestricted distribution of research is especially important for 
authors as their work gets seen by more people, 
readers as they can access and build on the most recent work in the field 
funders as the work they fund has broader impact by being able to reach a wider audience.
 DOAJ – Directory of open access journal
Routes (ways) to open access:
a. Gold open access - Gold OA makes the final version of an article freely and permanently accessible for
everyone, immediately after publication. Copyright for the article is retained by the authors and most of the
permission barriers are removed. Gold OA articles can be published either in fully OA journals (where all the
content is published OA) or hybrid journals (a subscription-based journal that offers an OA option which
authors can chose if they wish). An overview of fully OA journals can be found in the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ).
Benefits of Gold Open Access
1. Increased citation and usage. As articles are freely and permanently available online immediately upon
publication they have a broader distribution and increased visibility over subscription content. 

16
 2. Easy fulfillment with institutional and funder permission. Content published under a Creative Commons
license can be archived anywhere and made immediately available on publication, allowing authors to
easily fulfill with funder requirements.
3. preservation of copyright by authors.
4. Faster impact. As work is available to all as soon as it is published research that builds on the paper can
be carried out and published quicker. This is especially important in fast moving or time sensitive fields
and topics (e.g. current epidemics).
5. Greater public engagement as those without intuitional subscriptions can access latest research.
b. Green open access - Green OA, also referred to as self-archiving, is the practice of placing a version of an
author’s manuscript into a repository, making it freely accessible for everyone. The version that can be
deposited into a repository is dependent on the funder or publisher. Unlike Gold OA the copyright for these
articles usually sits with the publisher of, or the society affiliated with, the title and there are restrictions as to
how the work can be reused. There are individual self-archiving policies by journal or publisher that determine
the terms and conditions e.g. which article version may be used and when the article can be made openly
accessible in the repository (also called an embargo period). A list of publishers’ self-archiving policies can be
found on the SHERPA/RoMEO database.

SHERPA/RoMEO online resource to check publisher copyright & self-archiving policies

Sherpa Romeo is an online resource that aggregates and analyses publisher open access policies from around the
world and provides summaries of publisher copyright and open access archiving policies on a journal-by-journal
basis.

Software tool to identify predatory publications developed by SPPU

Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU)

SPPU appointed a committee to look after the issues of the predatory journals.

A recent analysis of who is publishing in such spurious Journals has indicated that most authors in predatory
journals are from developing countries, especially India, Nigeria, and some African and Middle East countries.

In such a situation, the appointment of this committee by the Hon Vice Chancellor, Savitribai Phule Pune University
(SPPU) is commendable.

Guidelines and Recommendations to avoid Predatory Publishing:

1. Journals which are regularly published at least for consecutive five years, do not guarantee publication in a
short time at cost consideration, publish true and correct information on websites, have reputed academicians
on editorial boards, and are members of reputed bodies like COPE can be considered as good journals and
research publications can be considered for academic purposes.
2. In accordance with the UGC Regulations 2010, University should develop a comprehensive department-wise
list of quality Journals and reputed publishers in each subject.
3. To qualify individual publications in peer-reviewed / reputed/refereed journals mere ISSN number is not
sufficient.
4. A good journal that complies with ethics in publishing, which is indexed in reputed agencies like Scopus, Web
of Science, Science Direct, Pubmed, SSRN, etc should be considered as reputed journals.
5. The record of citations to a particular publication in other reputed journals is also a very useful parameter to
judge the quality of a research paper. In open access, Google Scholar offers citation records and h5-index,
which can also be considered in the primary evaluation.

17
 6. Classification of Journals like national or international and ranking merely based on impact factors is not
relevant today especially because a large number of predatory journals with names starting with
‘international’ ‘global’, ‘world’ etc are in plenty as also several counterfeit impact factor agencies are in
existence.

Journal finder/journal suggestion tools viz. JANE, Elsevier journal finder, Springer journal
suggester, etc.
1. Scopus Journal Analyzer - Compare up to 10 journal titles. Gives a range of metrics including whether
they're well cited and if they publish many review articles
2. Elsevier Journal Finder - Paste in the title and/or abstract of your paper to match with suitable journals
3. Springer Journal Suggester - Enter the details of your paper to get suggested journal matches.
4. Manuscript matcher - Accessed via a free EndNote Online account. Use your manuscript details to find
relevant journals.
5. Open Journal Matcher - Paste details of your abstract to find relevant Open Access journals
6. IEEE Publication Recommender - Finds recommended IEEE publications based on keywords from your
paper.
7. JANE - Journal/Author Name Estimator. Compare your paper's title and/or abstract with millions of others
in PubMed to find matching articles, authors and journals.

Unit 5 (Publication misconduct)

1. Subject specific ethical issues, FFP, authorship

2. COI conflict of interest
3. Complaints & appeals: examples & fraud from India & abroad
4. Use of plagiarism software like Turnitin, Urkund, & other open source software tool

Unit 6(Data base & research metrics)

A. Data bases
1. Indexing databases
2. Citation databases: web of science, scopus, etc..
B. Research metrics
1. Impact factor of journal as per journal citation report, SNIP, SJR, IPP, Cite score.
2. Metrics: h-index, i10 index, altmetrics

Major matrics: Research Impact

Publicaton count – No.of publicatons produced by individual, school or university
Citation count – No.of times publication is cited by other publications
Impact factor of journal as per journal citation report, SNIP, SJR, IPP, Cite score.
Impact Factor (IF) = “a measure of the frequency with which an ‘average article’ in a journal has been cited in a
particular year or period”
IF = [A + (B-C-D-E)] / F+G+H
A - No.of times ur work is cited
B - No.of citations that actually trash ur work
C - No.of self citation
D - No.of times u cited in the introduction section
18
E - No.of citation that the editor pressure the author
F - No.of original articles you’ve writtern
G - No.of articles u were included in out of politics
H - No.of not so original aerticles you’v copied & pasted.

In the early 1960s Irving H. Sher and Eugene Garfield created the journal impact factor to help select journals for
the Science Citation Index.
The problem(s) with the Impact Factor
›The distribution of citations is highly skewed.
›Thomson Reuters calculates the Impact Factor
–Coverage has limitations
–Prone to errors
›Impact Factor was never meant to be used as a quality measurement for researchers
Cite score
IPP (Impact per Publication)
SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper)
IPP (Impact per Publication)
SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)
1. Cite score: CiteScore metrics calculate the citations from all documents in year one to all documents
published in the prior three years for a title. This offers a more robust and accurate indication of a journal’s
impact. As an example, to calculate a 2015 value, CiteScore counts the citations received in 2015 to
documents published in 2012, 2013 or 2014. This number is divided by the number of documents indexed on
Scopus published in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

2. IPP: (Impact Per Publication)

calculated as the number of citations given in the present year to publications in the past three years divided by the
total number of publications in the past three years. IPP is fairly similar to the well-known journal impact factor.
Like the journal impact factor, IPP does not correct for differences in citation practices between scientific fields. IPP
was previously known as RIP (raw impact per publication).
3. SJR: Scimago Journal Rank Indicator
A prestige metric where the ciation weighted depending on where they come from.
The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts
for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the
citations come from.
Higher SJR values are meant to indicate greater journal prestige.
EX: Lancet SJR 2007 = 1.541 – high prestige
Scandinavian journal of medicine and science in sports SJR 2007 = 0.153 – lower prestige

19
SJR is calculated by SCImago Lab and developed from Scopus data.

4. SNIP – Source Normalized Impact per paper

It measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject
field, using Scopus data.

5. The Eigenfactor is a rating of the total importance of a scientific journal.

Journals are rated according to the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly ranked journals
weighted to make a larger contribution to the Eigenfactor than those from poorly ranked journals.
Journal generating higher impact to the field have larger Eigenfactor scores.

Research evaluation metrics:

 Grade-like metrics take into consideration the number of publication and citations

20
 All such metrics are easy to calculate and provide a simplistic way to compare researchers
 Challenges on several levels:
–Validity –especially how they are field-dependent
–Limitation –not taking into account other forms of scientific output and impact

Google Scholar Metrics

The h-index of a publication: at least h articles in that publication were cited at least h times each.
For example, a publication with five articles cited by, respectively, 17, 9, 6, 3, and 2, has the h-index of 3.
The h-core of a publication: a set of top cited h articles from the publication.
For example, the publication above has the h-core with three articles, those cited by 17, 9, and 6.
The h-median of a publication: the median of the citation counts in its h-core.
For example, the h-median of the publication above is 9. The h-median is a measure of the distribution of citations
to the articles in the h-core.
i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.
For example, the i10 index of the publication above is 1
G-index  largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g² citations." 
Problem in h-index:
1. h-index increases with age so comparing productivity of younger researchers is problematic.
2. Calculated in controlled databases but need comprehensive citation report of all author’s publications.
3. The index works properly only for comparing scientists working in tha same field.
4. Different databases yield different h-index scores.
Ex:
Scopus Google Scholar Web of science
Publication indexed = 10 Publication indexed = 28 Publication indexed = 5
H-index = 3 H-index = 6 H-index = 1

What’s wrong with citations metrics?

 Your research will not be cited once it is covered in a review: –The findings will often be credited to the review
article rather than your own
 Databases are limited: Citation databases are limited in coverage
 Google Scholar -Calculations on GS citations are flawed:

–Redundancies and duplications

–Junk sources
21
 –Coverage and scope are never disclosed

–No quality control

 The Matthew Effect –or "the rich get richer”: People tend to cite already well-cited material by well-known
researchers

Traditional vs. Altmetrics

›Impact can be defined in different ways. Citations are one form of impact as they capture the research built upon
›We are now able to track not citations but also impact through:
–Social media mentions
–Downloads and views
–Sharing of scientific output
›These types of metrics are called ”Altmetrics” (metrics and qualitative data that are complementary to traditional,
citation-based metrics)
›These metrics balance biases and allow researchers to showcase the impact of their body of work beyond citations
Altmetrics
Altmetrics is the creation and study of new metrics based on the Social Web for analyzing and informing
scholarship:
›Usage: HTML views, PDF/XML downloads (various sources – eJournals, PubMed Central, FigShare, Dryad, etc.)
›Captures: CiteULike bookmarks, Mendeley readers/groups, Delicio.us
›Mentions: Blog posts, news stories, Wikipedia articles, comments, reviews
›Social Media: Tweets, Google+, Facebook likes, shares, ratings
›Citations : Web of Science, Scopus, CrossRef, PubMed Central, Microsoft Academic Search

Why is this important?

›Each scientist can include over 25 different sources of output that go beyond just articles
–Allows for a wholesome view of the body of work
›You can embed your profile on any webpage and showcase your impact
›Metrics include “traditional” (i.e. citations) and ‘altmetrics’ (i.e. social media mentions)
›Editing a profile is easy and straightforward
›Articles and other indexed materials are updated automatically
Main Takeaways
22
›Research evaluation metrics are complex
›There are numerous metrics out there
›Altmetrics measures are gaining prominence
›PLUM is a Mount Sinai effort to measure both traditional and alternative metrics
›ORCID and Scopus can help you keep your profile updated

23