Publication Ethics Hooman Momen, Editor Bulletin of the World Health Organization

COPE - first 128 cases

Problems of Authorship zDisputes - Question of interpretation yWhether “contribution” was substantial. xDiscuss authorship when research is planned xDecide authorship before article is started zMisconduct yAuthorship is unethical xStick to facts xAvoid being emotional

Two types of Problems l Gift Authorship l Inclusion of Authors who did not contribute significantly to the study l Hierarchy (Expectation / favour) l Colleagues ( Increase publications) l Ghost Authorship l Absence of Authors l Professional writers ( Should be acknowledged) l Hierarchical / political / personal reasons

Authorship: ICMJE Guidelines “Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met. “

What authors think? zSupply of patient data, reagents, biological specimens, illustrations zCo-ordination or participation in the collection of data zCare or examination of patients zSupply of funds or space ztechnical work in the laboratory zHead of department or institute

Authorship: other approaches zAuthors zCollaborators y Specify the contribution of each one y Include technical and author’s editors zGuarantors yFacilities, Funds and space yEthical conduct of study zReviewers

Overlapping Publications z Duplicate Submissions z Duplicate Publication y Redundant Publication y Acceptable Secondary Publication z Competing Manuscripts y Same study y Same Database z Sibling Publications

Duplicate Submissions z Most journals will not consider simultaneously submitted manuscripts y potential for disagreement over right to publish among journals y possibility of unnecessary duplication of peer review and editing z Is acceptable y when both editors believe it is in the best interest of Public Health y Paper has been rejected by another journal y Full report following submission of abstract

Redundant Publication z Publication of a paper that substantially overlaps with an already published article z Unethical y Wastes time of peer-reviewers and editors y Wastes resources and Journal pages y Leads to flawed meta analysis y Distorts Academic reward system y Infringes on copyright y Inflates scientific literature for no benefit other than to author

How widespread is the problem z Among articles in 70 Ophthalmologic journals between Mojon-Azzi et al. (2003) Nature 421: 209 y1.39% were considered redundant y 32/70 journals victim of duplicate publication y 210 authors were involved y No significant difference between impact factor of primary and secondary journal z However Elsevier reported only 10 cases last year among all their journals

Redundant publication - Editorial Actions z Prompt rejection of submitted paper z If redundant paper already published y Publication of notice of duplicate publication z Advise other editor/publisher involved y copyright violations z Inform employer/ institution of author y For appropriate sanctions to be taken

Acceptable Secondary Publication z Guidelines, another language, commemorative y Approval from editors of both journals y Priority of primary publication is respected y Paper for secondary publication is intended for a different audience y Secondary version faithfully reflects data and interpretations of primary version y Footnote on title page of secondary version states primary reference x "This article is based on a study first reported in the J. …"

Competing Manuscripts z Manuscripts based on same study yDisagreement on analysis or interpretation – Two options x Two papers on same study x Single paper with commentary(ies) y Disagreement on method or results x Publication refused until differences resolved z Manuscripts based on same data sets y Publication may be justified if different analytic approaches used

Sibling Manuscripts z Related papers submitted to different journals with no cross citation. y Fragments science – unhelpful to readers y Journals instruct authors to provide relevant papers including, in press and under review. y Greater likelihood paper will be accepted z Good publication practice is to provide y Full disclosure, full citation, full discussion of author's related work x Szklo & Wlcox (2003) Am. J. Epidemiology 157:281

Prevention z Better education on publication guidelines and ethics. z Introduction of registers for planned and on-going clinical trials. z Change criteria from quantity to quality when papers are used for assessment of posts or grants.

Ethical responsibilities of Editors and reviewers zMaintain confidentiality zNot to misappropriate ideas or text zEmit reviews that are justifiable and without bias zTransmit information to authors in a timely fashion zDeclare any conflict of interest

Conflict of interest zFinancial relationships yconsultancies yemployment yshares zPersonal relationships zAcademic competition zIntellectual passion