Why editors need to be concerned about publication ethics Elizabeth Wager, PhD Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Many forms of misconduct are noticed by editors, reviewers and readers: during or after publication

Ethical duties Journals should have systems to: –prevent –detect –respond to misconduct

Research ethics and publication ethics are linked Unethical research design Data fabrication Inappropriate analysis Lack of patient consent Data falsification Image manipulation Plagiarism Redundant publication DesignAnalysisReporting Authorship abuse Conduct

Misconduct: definitions Research misconduct Fabrication Falsification Unethical research Publication misconduct Plagiarism Biased/selective reporting Authorship abuse Redundant publication Undeclared CoI Reviewer misconduct Abuse of position Editors can't turn back the clock

Some forms of misconduct only occur on publication Plagiarism Fabrication Falsification Authorship problems Redundant publication

How common is misconduct? Systematic review (screened 3207 papers) Meta-analysis (18 studies) –surveys of fabrication or falsification –NOT plagiarism 2% admitted misconduct themselves (95% CI ) 14% aware of misconduct by others (95% CI ) Fanelli PLoS One 2009;4(5):e5738

How often is misconduct detected? PubMed retractions0.02% US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) % (1 in 10,000 / 100,000 scientists) Image manipulation in J Cell Biology 1% (8/800) FDA audit – investigators guilty of serious sci misconduct 2%

Does peer review detect misconduct? Obviously not in all cases Prestigious journals are not immune (may actually be more vulnerable?) Reviewers sometimes spot: –plagiarism (especially of own work) –redundant publication (from checking refs) –multiple submission (from seeing same paper) –?fabricated data..... probably very rarely

Jan Hendrik Schön The dark secret of Hendrik Schön (Horizon)

Schön's retracted papers 8 in Science (published ) 6 in Physics Review journals (4 from 2001) 7 in Nature (published )

Are editors alert to misconduct? Survey of science editors (n=231) Asked about 16 ethical issues including: –falsified or fabricated data, plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research design or conduct, image manipulation –authorship problems, reviewer misconduct, undisclosed commercial interests Wager et al. J Med Ethics 2009;35:348-53

For each issue, at their journals, editors asked about: Score 03 Severity not a problema very serious problem Frequency neververy often (>once/month) Confidence not at all confident highly confident

Average ratings (0-3) SeverityFrequency Redundant pub Plagiarism Duplicate sub Author CoI Reviewer CoI Fals/fabr data Image manip = not a problem 0 = never 1 = < 1/yr

What is COPE? The Committee On Publication Ethics Founded 1997 Forum for editors to discuss cases Provides guidance for editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and misconduct

COPE provides –Flowcharts –Guidance eg retractions –Sample letters –Code of Conduct –Best Practice guidelines –Database of cases –Blog / discussion

COPE flowchart

The flowcharts cover: Redundant (duplicate) publication Plagiarism Fabricated data Changes in authorship Ghost, guest or gift authorship Conflicts of interest General suspected ethical concerns Reviewer misconduct

COPE welcomes new members Currently over 6500 members Membership open to any academic, peer- reviewed journal Members can display COPE logo … Members expected to follow COPE Code of Conduct ?Part of your brand strategy

Being a COPE member shows: You take ethical issues seriously You will handle ethical issues correctly You will follow COPE recommendations (e.g. flowcharts) You will follow the COPE Code of Conduct (authors / readers can make a complaint if you do not!) Would this enhance your journal’s brand?

COPE contact details Membership enquiries: COPE, PO Box 39, Harleston IP20 9WR, England  Website: Registered office: 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk, IP20 9HL, UK Telephone: +44 (0)

What can editors do? Detect research and publication misconduct Prevent publication misconduct Educate authors Promote good practice –be aware of how journal policies may influence behaviour Inform authorities, employers Correct the literature

What editors CANNOT do Prevent research misconduct Investigate research misconduct Settle disputes (e.g. authorship) Investigate most types of publication misconduct although they may request investigations

Editors should acknowledge misconduct “If editors do not recognize ethical problems, they cannot act on them – and, until recently, most did not” Richard Smith in Wells & Farthing (eds) Fraud & Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 4e, RSM Press, London, 2008

Conclusions Editors can / should: Prevent, detect, publicise and correct misconduct By informing, educating, screening, retracting, liaising with institutions

“It is a vice to trust all, and equally a vice to trust none” Seneca 4 BC – 65 AD