Research and Publication Ethics

Module 3: Publication Ethics

Basic details

Module 3 Publication Ethics

Teaching hours 07

Module 3: Overview of content

Scientific Conduct
1. Publication ethics: Definition, Introduction and Importance
2. Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME etc
3. Conflict of Interest
4. Publication Misconduct: Definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behavior
and vice versa, types
5. Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributorship
6. Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals
7. Predatory publishers and journals

Topic Page no.

Learning Resource

Topic Learning resource

3.1 Publication ethics: Definition, Introduction and importance

Definition and Introduction:

● Ethical code of conduct that binds researcher at every stage

● Publication ethics are rules of conduct generally agreed upon when publishing
results of scientific research or other scholarly work.
● Generally it is a standard that protects intellectual property and forbids the
re-publication of another's work without proper credit. It also forbids the use of
plagiarism of another's efforts.
● The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an international forum for
editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals that provide the “code of
conduct” and “best practice guidelines” that define publication ethics and advises
editors on how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct
● In India, UGC published Good Academic Research Practices (GARP) which
provides framework for enhancing research integrity by focusing on potential
threats and good practices at each and every stage
● Publication ethics should promote Research Integrity, which can be done by
promoting values in the conduct and management of research, such as Openness,
Honesty, Accountability, Transparency, Impartiality, Integrity, Carefulness,
Independence, Rigour and so on
● Publication misconduct includes Research fraud, Redundant publication,
Simultaneous publication, Authorship abuse, Self citation, Plagiarism and so on
● The Ethics committee plays an important role in formulating, implementing and
regulating Publication ethics. UGC has drafted a common policy as follows:
○ All Universities in India must be equipped with Research ethics committee
at departmental level
○ UGC recommends DAIP and IAIP panels should be present (Departmental
and Institutional Academic Integrity Panel)
○ Research protocols may be submitted to such committees for
consideration, guidance, improvement and approval before
commencement of the study
 ○ Research ethics committee shall
■ Promote awareness programs regarding do’s and don'ts of the
research
■ Act as mediators or advisors in disputed cases through DAIP and
IAIP
■ Encourage organizational research culture based upon defensible
standards of research practices
■ Show commitment to high quality, transparent and accountable
research ethics throughout India
■ Monitor progress of ongoing studies
■ Organize seminar/ awareness programs on Research and
Publication ethics for all
○ Researcher responsibilities:
■ Update committee regarding events, issues and status of research
■ Send a copy of thesis
■ Send details of all publications

Importance of Publication ethics:

● Norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of
error
● Prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data
promote the truth and minimize error
● Promotes values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust,
accountability, mutual respect, and fairness
● Helps to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public
● Helps to build public support for research
● Promotes a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social
responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public
health and safety.
3.2 Best practices/ standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME

● COPE: Committee on Publication ethics was founded in 1997 to address

breaches in research and publication ethics
● Supports and encourages editors to report, catalog and instigate investigations in
relation to research misconduct
● COPE has published two codes of conduct:
○ Code of Conduct for editors
○ Code of Conduct for publishers
● COPE in collaboration with WAME (World association of medical editors) and
others have developed policy on “Principles of Transparency and best practice in
scholarly publishing” consisting of 16 essential parameters:
○ Journal website:
■ It must not contain information that might mislead readers or
authors, including any attempt to mimic another
journal/publisher’s site
■ ‘Aims & Scope’ statement
■ Statement on what a journal will consider for publication including
authorship criteria (e.g., not considering multiple submissions,
redundant publications) to be included
■ ISSNs should be clearly displayed (separate for print and
electronic).
○ Name of Journal: The Journal name shall be unique and not be one that is
easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential
authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other
journals
○ Process of peer review: Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on
individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field who are not part
of the journal’s editorial staff
■ Journal content must be clearly marked as whether peer reviewed
or not.
 ■ All processes as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer
review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal website,
including the method of peer review used
■ Journal websites should not guarantee manuscript acceptance or
very short peer review times
○ Information about ownership and/ or management
○ Governing body: Members are recognized experts in the subject areas
included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the
journal’s editorial board or other governing body shall be provided on the
journal’s website.
○ Editorial team: Full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors
○ Copyright and Licensing:
■ The policy for copyright shall be clearly stated in the author
guidelines and the copyright holder named on all published articles
■ Likewise, licensing information shall be clearly described in
guidelines on the website, and licensing terms shall be indicated on
all published articles, both HTML and PDFs
■ If authors are allowed to publish under a Creative Commons license
then any specific license requirements shall be noted
■ Any policies on posting of final accepted versions or published
articles on third party repositories shall be clearly stated.
○ Author fees:
■ Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing
and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in
a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting
their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they
begin preparing their manuscript for submission. If no such fees
are charged that should also be clearly stated.
○ Process in relation to addressal of Research misconduct: Publishers and
editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication
of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism,
 citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In
no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or
knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a
journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research
misconduct relating to a published article in their journal, the publisher or
editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with
allegations.
○ Publication ethics: A journal shall also have policies on publishing ethics.
These should be clearly visible on its website, and should refer to:
■ Journal policies on authorship and contributorship
■ How the journal will handle complaints and appeals
■ Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests
■ Journal policies on data sharing and reproducibility
■ Journal’s policy on ethical oversight
■ Journal’s policy on intellectual property
■ Journal’s options for post-publication discussions and corrections
○ Publication schedule: The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be
clearly indicated
○ Access: The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are
available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay
per view fees shall be stated
○ Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of
access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via
CLOCKSS or PubMedCentral) in the event a journal is no longer published
shall be clearly indicated
○ Revenue sources: Business models or revenue sources (e.g., author fees,
subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and
organizational support) shall be clearly stated or otherwise evident on the
journal’s website. Publishing fees or waiver status should not influence
editorial decision making.
○ Advertising: Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant,
 including what types of adverts will be considered, who makes decisions
regarding accepting adverts and whether they are linked to content or
reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at random. Advertisements
should not be related in any way to editorial decision making and shall be
kept separate from the published content.
○ Direct marketing: Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of
manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be
appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive. Information provided about
the publisher or journal is expected to be truthful and not misleading for
readers or authors.
● COPE membership has following benefits:
○ Annual seminar for free
○ Website
○ Publication ethics audit tool
○ Access to COPE newsletter
○ E-learning programs
● CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL
EDITORS
○ Code of Conduct:
○ Should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors
○ Strive to constantly improve their journal
○ Have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish
○ Champion freedom of expression
○ Maintain the integrity of the academic record
○ Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical
standards
○ Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and
apologies when needed
○ Accountable for everything published in their journals
○ Best practice for editors would include:
○ Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial
 board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
○ Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication
misconduct
○ Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
○ Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been
reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers
○ Ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly
identified
○ Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from
members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and
unbiased evaluation
○ Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be
based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s
validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal
○ A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors
should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described
processes
○ Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against
editorial decisions
○ Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions
○ Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles
○ Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing
interests before agreeing to review a submission
○ Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible
research and publication misconduct raised by submissions
○ Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating
this on the basis of reviewer performance
○ Acting as ambassadors for the journal
○ Supporting and promoting the journal
○ Communicating regularly with their journal’s owner and publisher
○ Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair,
 unbiased and timely
○ Reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is
possible
○ Having systems in place to detect falsified data
○ Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an
appropriate body
○ Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of
misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and
unpublished papers
○ Taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication
○ Ensuring that published material is securely archived
○ Adopting systems for detecting plagiarism
○ Supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been
the victims of plagiarism
○ Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond
○ Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded
● WAME was established in 1955
● AIM:
○ Facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of
peer reviewed journals, improve editorial standards and promote
professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism and
self regulation
○ Encourage research on principles and practice of medical editing
● Membership is free and open to all; small journals are well represented
● WAME Ethics and Policy committee covers broad areas like:
○ Ethics and professionalism
○ Authors
○ Conflict of interest
○ Global health and politics
○ Peer review
○ Policy archives
3.3 Conflicts of interest

● Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that
are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is
published
● Conflicts of interest in research are situations where professional objectivity may
be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, because of competing
financial, personal, or professional connections or personal values and stands. A
conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary
interest may be influenced by a secondary interest.
● May limit objectivity in the publication process
● Types: Financial/ Tangible; Non-financial/ Intangible
● Financial: Sources of funds/grants for the research conducted, receipt of a
consulting fee from a company manufacturing the equipment used in the
research, stocks in such a company, or other financial connections that might
influence an individual's thinking and affect the research outcome. Some journals
may require authors to declare not just any competing financial connections they
may have individually, but also any that their immediate family members
(spouse, parent, or child) may have, since these may also pose indirect conflicts of
interest.
● Non-financial: Personal relationships or professional affiliations; private or
publicly held beliefs and ideologies that can give rise to potential biases;
professional rivalries
● Areas: Personal, Commercial, Political, Academic or Financial
● How to prevent it?
○ All concerned members should declare their interests properly, and should
be published in website
○ Complete disclosure of financial conflicts
○ Recognising scientific merits when conducting evaluation
○ Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed
○ Ensure proper disclosure from the author
 ○ Withdraw from discussions, decisions if found beyond ability or area of
expertise
○ If authors state no conflict of interest, publish confirmation of the same
● How one can identify and appropriately declare conflicts of interest in research:
○ List down all sources of financial support
○ List down any social or personal activities/interests that may be
considered to influence how you conduct your research
○ Review any institutional ties you may have in the present or have had in
the recent past (where you worked/volunteered, etc.) that can be said to
affect your objectivity in your work
○ Review and comply with all the guidelines provided by your target journal
on what they define as conflicts of interest and how they want authors to
disclose them
○ Potential for conflicts and ways to deal with them are constantly evolving.
Keep yourself updated and seek out new information.
○ As per the US Office of Research Integrity, “Having a conflict of interest is
not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is
always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”

3.4 Publication Misconduct: Definition, concept, problems that lead to

unethical behavior and vice versa, types

● Definition: Falsification, Fabrication or Plagairism in proposing, performing, or

reviewing research, or in reporting research results
● Problems that lead to unethical behavior:
○ Fabrication of data
○ Falsification of data
○ Plagiarism
○ Other serious deviations from accepted practices
 ○ Other deception involving manipulation of data or experiments
○ Retaliation for good faith misconduct allegations
○ Interfering with misconduct investigation
○ Covering up misconduct
○ Failing to report misconduct
○ Making inappropriate or false misconduct allegations
○ Misuse of confidential information
○ Misappropriation of funds
○ Misappropriation of property/ destruction/ theft
○ Unethical authorship practices other than plagiarism
○ Misrepresentation of one’s credentials/ qualifications
○ Failure to disclose significant financial or other interests
○ Significant or material violations of regulations, laws or policies pertaining
to human subjects, animal research, biosafety, radiation safety and so on
● Types already covered in Module 2 (Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism)
● Nature of Plagiarism:
○ Word by word copying without acknowledging the source
○ Paraphrasing or abbreviated restatement without acknowledging
○ False citation
○ False data: Academic fraud
○ Unacknowledged multiple submission
○ Unacknowledged multiple authors or collaboration
○ Self Plagiarism/ Double submission
● UGC guidelines on levels of Plagiarism:

UGC recommendations: Plagiarism in submission of Thesis and

Dissertations

Level of similarities Characteristics Penalty

Level 0 Up to 10% No penalty

Level 1 Above 10% - 40% Submit revised script

within a stimulated time
 period not exceeding 6
months

Level 2 Above 40% - 60% Debarred from

submitting revised script
for a period of 1 year

Level 3 Above 60% Registration canceled

UGC recommendations: Plagiarism in Academic and Research

publications

Level of similarities Characteristics Penalty

Level 0 Up to 10% No penalty

Level 1 Above 10% - 40% Withdrawal of

manuscript

Level 2 Above 40% - 60% Withdrawal of

manuscript; Denied one
annual increment; Not
allowed to be a
supervisor for 2 years

Level 3 Above 60% Withdrawal of

manuscript; Denied two
succ annual increment;
Not allowed to be a
supervisor for years

● Similarity checks for plagiarism shall exclude:

○ All quoted work either falling under public domain or reproduced with all
necessary permission and/ or attribution
○ All references, bibliography, table of content, preface and
acknowledgements
○ All small similarities of minor nature (common knowledge or coincidental
terms upto 14 consecutive words)
○ All generic terms, laws, standard symbols and standard equations
● Plagiarism detection is the process of locating instances of plagiarism and/ or
 copyright infringement within a work or document
● Plagiarism detection tools: Turnitin, iThenticate, Plagium and so on

3.5 Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributorship

● Violation of publication ethics is a global problem which includes duplicate

submission, multiple submissions, plagiarism, gift authorship, fake affiliation,
ghost authorship, pressured authorship, salami publication and fraud
(fabrication and falsification) but excludes the honest errors committed by the
authors
○ Data fabrication: Making up data or results
○ Data falsification: Manipulating research outcome via misrepresentation
○ Plagiarism: Presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own
○ Duplicate/ Multiple/ Redundant submission: Submitting the same or a
very similar manuscript to two or more journals
○ Fake affiliation: Wrong author and institution details
○ Salami publication: Publication of two or more articles derived from a
single study
○ Gift authorship: Co-authorship awarded to a person who has not
contributed significantly to the study
○ Ghost authorship: Contribution to produce a paper excluded in the final
publication
○ Guest authorship: Senior authors who are included because of their
respect or influence in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of
publication and/or impact of the paper once published
○ Pressured authorship: When a person uses their position of authority to
obtain authorship
● Causes behind violation: Academic pressure, Career growth, peer pressure,
Incentives and so on
● How to prevent?: DAIP and IAIP, Awareness programs, Counter-measures:
Anti-Plagiarism software, Strict adherence to journal guidelines, Clear authorship
order, Clearance from ethics committee, Informed consent and assent, Obtaining
 rights and permissions wherever required

Authorship and Contributorship

● Authorship refers to list of authors who have contributed to the published work
● Contributorship refers to contributorship statement at the end of the paper,
giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work
● Authorship entails responsibility and accountability
● Author: “A Student or a faculty or a researcher or staff of HEI who claims to be
the creator of the work (intellectual) under consideration”
● Who can be credited as an author?
○ Made substantial contribution in
■ Research study (Design, Data acquisition, Analysis and
Interpretation)
■ Drafting or revising the article for intellectual content
■ Approval of final version
■ Accountable for all aspects of work and Integrity of work
● Types of Authorship
○ Ghost: Authors whose significant contribution is not acknowledged
○ Guest: Authors included solely for the purpose of increasing acceptance
rate of the manuscript
○ Gift: Authors included despite any significant contribution
○ Surrogate: Written by someone else passed off as someone else’s
○ Anonymous: Publishing with anonymity; lacks transparency
● What causes authorship problems?
○ No authors specified
○ Author from unrelated domain
○ Unspecified role in acknowledgement
○ No significant contribution
○ Questionable roles
○ Unable to respond to reviewer’s comments
○ Similar articles published under different author names
 ○ Language quality differs in various sections of manuscript
● COPE guideline to minimize authorship problem
○ Submit: Adopt transparent policy as to who contributed
○ Encourage: Create awareness (ORCID, CRediT)
○ Behavior: Check unusual patterns of behavior
● If a meeting is convened to discuss about authorship involving all authors,
authorship problem may be countered
● WILEY guidelines:
○ Journals must specify clear authorship criteria
○ Journals should require confirmation from authors and co-authors
○ Journals should ask authors for a short description of their contribution
○ Copyright transfer and Exclusive license agreements
○ Journal should require that all authors agree with the order of authorship
○ Encourage towards having unique IDs (ORCID) to bypass matching
author names

3.6 Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals

● What constitutes publication misconduct?
○ Fabrication
○ Falsification
○ Plagiarism
○ Duplicate submission
○ Salami publishing
○ Fake affiliation
○ Authorship problems
○ Violation of generally accepted research practices
○ Failure to adhere to legal requirements
○ Employing inappropriate statistical technique to enhance results
○ Exploring students for own benefit
○ Failure to maintain research data
 ○ Rejecting a manuscript without even reading it
● Responding to allegations of possible misconduct: Role of editorial
○ Journals should have a clear policy on handling misconduct
○ Journals should provide a platform and mechanism to appeal editorial
decisions, facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or
unfounded appeals
○ Journals should have an obligation towards publishing accurate work
○ All allegations of misconduct should be referred to Editor-in-chief
○ Allow appeals to override earlier decisions only in case if new information
emerges
○ Journals should state that Editor’s decision following an appeal is final
○ A letter seeking explanation is to be sent to the person against whom
complaint is made
○ Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers
3.7 Predatory publishers and journals

● Defined as “Systematic way for-profit publication of purportedly scholarly

content in a deceptive or fraudulent way without any appropriate review
mechanism with regard to quality assurance”
● Predatory Journals take advantage of authors by asking them to publish for a fee
without providing peer-review or editing services
● Exist solely for profit
● The focus of predatory or fake journals is to mirror real journals sufficiently so as
to confuse and attract young and inexperienced researchers to submit their
manuscripts
● Hijacked journals are duplicate or fake websites of legitimate ones utilizing the
title, ISSN and other information of the reputable journal. They are often created
by a malicious third party for the purpose of fraudulently offering academicians
the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee.
● Characteristics of a predatory journal:
○ Attractive names that mimic high ranking legitimate journals
 ○ No website or website with no clarity
○ Unprofessional website layout
○ Guaranteed acceptance of manuscript upon submission
○ Invite submission from unrelated disciplines, beyond the stated scope of
journal
○ No editorial board
○ Articles published are of varied lengths
○ Description of manuscript handling process is lacking
○ No retraction policy
○ Do not follow COPE or WAME guidelines
○ Hidden charges
○ Failure to mention copyright
○ Contact email address is non-journal affiliated
○ Usage of fake metrics (GIF, SJIF, IC…)
○ False claims
○ Editorial members without credentials
● How to find predatory journals and publishers?
○ Pay and Publish schemes
○ No peer review process
○ Article processing charges
○ Not listed in Directory of open access journals (DOAJ)
○ Not listed in Ulrich’s periodicals directory
○ Not listed in major indexes
○ Publisher not a member of Open access scholarly publishers association
(OASPA)
○ Listed in Beall’s list or Cabells’ predatory reports
● Role of academic community in fight against predatory publication: Researcher
○ Check whether journal is listed in DOAJ
○ Check whether publisher is a member of OASPA
○ Make sure journal is not listed in Cabells’ predatory reports
○ Consult research supervisor for guidance
○ Check whether listed in Ulrich’s periodicals directory
○ Follow updated UGC-CARE listed journals (Group I and Group II)
○ Use journal selectors
○ “Think-Check-Submit”
○ Blacklist: Bealls’ blog, Cabell’s International
○ White list: DOAJ, OASPA, COPE, Publons
○ Journal selection: Elsevier journal finder, Springer journal suggester,
JANE (Journal author name estimator)….
○ UGC has established “Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics”
(CARE) for creation and maintenance of “Reference List of Quality
Journals”. CARE members include Statutory Councils/ Academies/
Government bodies and others like the Association of Indian Universities.
○ The following are the reasons for the establishment of the CARE List:
■ To promote quality research, academic integrity, and publication
■ To prevent publications in dubious/predatory/sub-standard
journals
■ To maintain the Reference UGC CARE List of Quality Journals
■ To develop a methodology and approach for good quality journal
identification
○ UGC-Care has divided whole list of journals into four main groups which
are explained here:
■ Group A: Research Journals from all disciplines which are indexed
in Scopus (Source List) or Web of Science
■ Group B: UGC Care List of Journals from the previous list which is
qualified as per the analysis protocols
■ Group C: Recommended journals by UGC-CARE Council members
from all disciplines which are qualified as per the analysis protocols
■ Group D: Journals submitted by UGC-CARE Universities for all
disciplines and languages which are qualified as per the analysis
protocols
■ The UGC-CARE List now has only TWO groups, instead of the
 original FOUR groups to simplify the search
○ How to Check UGC Approved Journal?
■ Step 1: Visit the official website of UGC CARE
■ Step 2: Register yourself by submitting the required details and
create a password carefully
■ Step 3: Log in to the website by using your email id and password
■ Step 4: Now, you can search for the journals that are categorized in
Group I & II
3.8 iThenticate software for plagiarism detection (turnitin)

● Create account (Sign Up: First name, last name, email, country, time zone,
captcha, otp: mail)
● Login using username and password (Top right corner)
● Main navigation bar: Folders, Settings, Account Info
○ Folders: Main area of iThenticate; upload, manage and view documents
○ Settings: Contains configuration options for the iThenticate interface
○ Account Info: User profile and account usage; Manage your account
● Detailed description in Module 4