1. ETHICS – FROM CODES TO PRACTICE KARIM MURJI, THE OPEN UNIVERSITY, UK

2. AIM 1. TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY 2. TO PROVIDE A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ETHICS IN JOURNAL PUBLISHING

3. PUBLISHING ETHICS An overview from Elsevier - 4 domains 3

4. 4 Various sources exist CODES AND ADVICE  Professional associations [discipline based] and learned societies  Research funders  Council of Science Editors  COPE [Committee on Publishing Ethics]  Publishers

5. 5 Council of Science Editors DUTIES OF JOURNAL EDITORS (1)  Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting and assessment of manuscripts  Treat solicited manuscripts according to the journal’s standard procedures  Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency  Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest for all involved

6. 6 Council of Science Editors DUTIES (2)  Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s [and reviewer’s] work  Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner  Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process  Developing mechanisms, in cooperation with the publisher, to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts  Duties to readers and  Reporting standards? e.g. annual report

7. 7 DUTIES OF REVIEWERS Elsevier/Council of Science  Timeless: Respond promptly – or report reason if there is a delay  Act fairly – review the paper written not the one you would have written  Be objective and supportive: Provide constructive comments  Maintain confidentiality  Declare conflicts of interest [e.g. knowing the author(s); involvement in decision to fund the research] - Some journals ask for confirmation that reviewer has no conflict when agreeing t0 review - But conflict should be declared even if not requested

8. 8 DUTIES OF PUBLISHERS And scientific/professional associations  Decisions based on scientific/expert decisions not commercial criteria  Timeliness [and quality] of publication  Contribute and support work on ethics, errors and retractions  Legal advice  Support editors – but also ‘oversight’  Maintain complaints process and transparency - problem of how to reconcile this with confidentiality  Turnover?  Review processes and best practice? Monitoring of decisions?

9. 9 DUTIES OF AUTHORS (1) Council of Science Editors  State all sources of funding for research and include it the submitted manuscript.  State in the manuscript, if appropriate, that the research protocol employed was approved by the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees  List contributors who meet the journal’s criteria for authorship as authors and identify other support (e.g., statistical analysis or writers), with the contributor’s approval, in the acknowledgment section. Some journals may require and publish a statement of author contribution for each article.  Describe and provide copies of any similar works in process.  Provide copies of cited manuscripts that are submitted or in press.  Cite and reference other relevant published work on which the submitted work is based.  Obtain permission from the copyright owner to use/reproduce copyrighted content  Provide written permission from any potentially identifiable individuals referred to or shown in photographs in the manuscript.  Copyright transfer statement or licensing agreement

10. 10 DUTIES OF AUTHORS (2) Grey areas?  Use of data – ‘salami slicing’  Inclusion of all authors/researchers and order of names  Multiple and redundant submission  Re-use of text  Compliance with journal policies – e.g. one submission at a time

11. 11 EXAMPLE (1) Challenging editorial decisions  Authors sometimes query the decisions of an editor. Usually done informally as a request for more information. The journal operates on the basis that the Editor’s decision is final. The journal’s Editors – because they have been chosen for their expertise and through a rigorous process – are regarded as appropriate individuals to make these judgements.  The editors and the BSA may look further at queries to an editorial decision if there has been a factual error (i.e. the reviewer submitted a review scores for a different paper and there has been a mix up), due process has not been followed or if an instance of perceived or actual conflict of interest is indicated by key decision makers.  However, in most cases where editorial decisions have been challenged, the original decision has been upheld

12. 12 EXAMPLE (2) Suspected Plagiarism/Copyright Infringement  An increasingly complex area – use of software programmes that scan the web to check whether papers duplicate other work by the same author(s) or infringe copyright.  Sociology has dealt with a number of cases of suspected plagiarism and/or copyright infringement. - a complainant has come forward to claim that published work is plagiarised. - After investigation, in some cases the complaint has been upheld, though there are also cases where the claim against the author(s) has not been upheld. The investigation process draws on experts in the area to examine detail provided by the complainant and to help the journal make a decision on whether there is a case to answer. - Always involves the publisher and legal counsel as there is scope for this to become a matter of employment law for the author(s) concerned.  But it is not always clear cut: who had the idea first? What is the source of the data? How has it been stored and repurposed? Where multiple authors are involved, what connections/relationships are involved? How has the work been produced by the team?

13. 13 EXAMPLE (3) Duplicate publication  Pieces of work that were identified as being very close in nature and conclusions to that published elsewhere. - identification was made prior to publication by the BSA. - Investigation process involved having a number of academic experts examine the works to judge the nature and severity of the duplication. Authors are invited to respond. - In some cases, we have concluded that the duplication was too great and that the piece due to be published by the BSA did not constitute an addition of original material to the academic record and we have chosen not to publish. In others, we have found that differences were adequate enough to warrant publication.

14. 14 EXAMPLE(4) Unethical behaviour  Suspected/claimed unethical behaviour by authors, editors and peer reviewers. - Each case considered individually, in some cases finding that there has been no misconduct, in others that there was behaviour warranting concern. - Regardless of outcome, we have investigated and communicated clearly with all parties to express concerns and conclusions. For these types of situations, we cannot describe patterns or generalisations because they are situation-specific. These types of cases can be the most challenging because there may be very different perspectives on what constitutes ‘misconduct’ and its severity. There may then also be differing perspectives on the action that should be taken and by whom.

15. 15 CONCLUSION To sum up  Ethical principles and codes exist and are very helpful guides.  Ethical concerns are mainly linked to authors and manuscripts submitted [as in all examples] but also apply to editors, reviewers and publishers  Ethical standards [in UK] are high but not perfect  Practical cases reveal need to treat each case on its own merits  There can be grey areas about what is and is not what is seen as unethical practice – and the degree of culpability involved.  Some cases may become legal matters for individuals, associations, and publishers.