View
362
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
©Sideview
Publishers’ role in publication ethics: part of the solution
or part of the problem?
Liz WagerPublications Consultant, Sideview
Chair, COPE, 2009-2012
Why should publishers be concerned about ethics?
Responsible for the integrity of their publications (with editors)
As professionals
To avoid expensive problems (litigation)
Good for business
©Sideview
Scholarly publishers have special obligations
“Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.”
Mark Twain
©Sideview
What can go wrong?
Misconduct by authors• Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification
Misconduct by editors• Abuse of position, unfairness
Misconduct by peer reviewers• Theft of ideas/data
Misconduct by publishers• Undue commercial influence
©Sideview
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 0.9-4.5)
14% aware of misconduct by others (95% CI 9.9-19.7)
Fanelli PLoS One 2009;4(5):e5738
How often is misconduct detected?
PubMed retractions 0.02%
US Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
0.01-0.001%(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%
Because major ethical problems are (quite) rare
Editors don’t see many cases during their term of office
Publishers looking after many journals can provide ‘corporate memory’AND
Editors are largely untrained
Publishers (and editors)
Should work to:
prevent
detect
respond appropriately
to misconduct
©Sideview
What should journals & publishers do?
Educate
Raise awareness
Have clear policies
?screen
?discipline
Tools for detecting misconduct
Anti-plagiarism software (eg eTBLAST, CrossCheck, Turnitin)
Screening images (PhotoShop) Chemical structure checks Data review (digit preference)
CrossCheck
Based on iParadigms software
Compares text against publishers’ d-base
D-base run by CrossRef (doi system)
D-base currently contains 59,000 titles
Shows % concordance + source
Can exclude “quotes” and references
?False positives / ‘noise’ level
Image screening Pioneered by J Cell Biology
Used in some life sciences journals
Important for research where the image = the findings
• genetics / cell biology / radiography
Manual check using PhotoShop
Requires editor time / expertise
Rossner & Yamada, JCB 2004;166:11-15
Found 1% unacceptable manipulation
Figure 1. Gross manipulation of blots
Rossner M., Yamada K. M. J. Cell Biol. 2004:166:11-15
© 2004 Rossner et.al.
Figure 1. Gross manipulation of blots
Rossner M., Yamada K. M. J. Cell Biol. 2004:166:11-15
© 2004 Rossner et.al.
Chemical structure checks Examined structure-factor files Identified >70 bogus organic structures Authors had taken a genuine structure and switched
metals (eg Fe / Cu) or chemical groups (CH2 / NH / OH)
Editors note: “it is a concern and a disappointment that these [chemically implausible or impossible structures] passed into the literature”
>70 articles retracted
Acta Crystallographica 2010;E66:e1-2
Effects of journal policies
Educate authors and reviewers
Encourage truthful authorship
Discourage redundant publication
Encourage clinical trial registration
©Sideview
Trial registration
1980s 1990 19971986 1999 2003 2004 20052000
Concerns re publication
bias
Simes1
Chalmers2
Tramèr3
FDAMA
clinicaltrials.gov start online
ISRCTN launched
ICMJE announcement
ICMJE deadline
GW register
1Publication bias
JCO 4:1529
2Underreporting research is scientific misconduct
JAMA 263:1405
3Impact of covert duplicate publication
BMJ 315:635
ABPI site
Problems
Inappropriate policies
Undue commercial interference
Breach of editorial independence
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
©Sideview
Case study
Editor of orthopaedic journal failed to disclose receiving >$20 million in royalties from a device company …
What could the publisher have done?
©Sideview
Editorial freedom
“editorial freedom … cannot be total. I couldn’t turn the BMJ into a soccer magazine because I’d got bored with
medicine. Freedom must be accompanied by accountability”
Richard Smith (former editor, BMJ)
©Sideview
Editorial freedom?
“freedom of the press … means freedom to print such of the
proprietor’s prejudices as the advertisers don’t object to”
Hannen Swaffer
©Sideview
© Sideview
Editors
AuthorsReaders
Reviewers
biased reviews
poor reviewer choice
undeclared CoI
low quality review
irresponsible
reporting
flawed processes
© Sideview
Unhappy authors
Fewer readers
Fewer advertisers
Dissatisfied parent society
fewer submissions
low quality submissions
If trust breaks down
decreased revenue
decreased
revenue
© Sideview
Consumers increasingly question
Company ethos
'Fair trade'
Environmental concerns
Labour policies
Animal testing
Reputation arrives on foot, and leaves on horseback
“the pragmatic issue of how hard it is to build a journal, and how easy it is
to destroy one”
Frank Davidoff, former editor, Annals of Internal Medicine
©Sideview
Reputation
“If readers once hear that important, relevant, and well argued articles are being suppressed or that articles are
being published simply to fulfil hidden political agendas, then the
credibility of the publication collapses—and everybody loses”
Richard Smith
©Sideview
A fine balance
Publishers want to make money
Journals depend on reputation for• Independence• Fairness• Academic merit
Part of the solution or part of the problem?
©Sideview
Part of
the problem
Weak policies
No training in ethics
No corporate memory
Interference
Few resources
Little support for editors
the solution
Sound policies
Staff and editor training
Corporate memory
Editorial independence
Resources for screening (eg CrossCheck)
Support for editors (eg joining COPE)
©Sideview