Introduction to COPE and Publication Ethics
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes5,567 views
This document provides an introduction to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and discusses publication ethics. It describes COPE's mission to educate and advance knowledge around safeguarding scholarly integrity. COPE membership includes over 12,500 members in over 100 countries representing various subject areas. The document outlines some of the key challenges in publication ethics according to COPE's membership surveys, including a lack of training in research and publication ethics. It also summarizes different types of ethics issues that may arise, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and fraud. Resources provided by COPE to support publication ethics are mentioned.
![Who is COPE?
Charitable company limited by
guarantee
Trustee Board and Council (Volunteers)
+ Staff
Membership organisation [Not a
statutory body , no regulatory
authority]
12’500
Members
in +100 countries](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/curnonov2019munin-191129102400/85/Introduction-to-COPE-and-Publication-Ethics-4-320.jpg)
![Mandates to change behaviours
[The Proposed Rule for U.S. Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission; Deborah A. Zarin,
M.D., Tony Tse, Ph.D., and Jerry Sheehan, M.S.; N Engl J Med 2015; 372:174-180]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/curnonov2019munin-191129102400/85/Introduction-to-COPE-and-Publication-Ethics-15-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Introduction to COPE and Publication Ethics (20)
Introduction to COPE and Publication Ethics
- 1. Introduction to COPE and Publication Ethics Mirjam Curno, PhD @C0PE www.publicationethics.org
- 2. About me Competing interests: None. Frontiers funded my travel to attend the meeting. COPE council member and trustee 2012-2019 Publishing Director, with Frontiers since 2014 @MirjamCurno
- 3. COPE’s mission To educate and advance knowledge in methods of safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record Three core principles: • Providing practical resources to educate and support our members • Providing leadership in thinking on publication ethics • Offering a neutral, professional voice in current debates AIM: to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become the norm, part of the culture itself, not something imposed from outside.
- 4. Who is COPE? Charitable company limited by guarantee Trustee Board and Council (Volunteers) + Staff Membership organisation [Not a statutory body , no regulatory authority] 12’500 Members in +100 countries
- 6. COPE membership COPE membership by subject area
- 7. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Zero 1 to 2 3 to 6 7 to 20 21 or more Total (484) Econ., Fin., Bus. and Industry (15*) Engineering, Maths and Tech (18*) Life sciences (45) Other sciences (27) Medicine and Veterinary (120) Arts, Humanities, Social Sci. (24) Base: All with an opinion () * Indicates caution: low base of less than 20 respondents Number of ethics cases seen annually
- 14. Publication ethics is an integral part of research integrity
- 15. Mandates to change behaviours [The Proposed Rule for U.S. Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission; Deborah A. Zarin, M.D., Tony Tse, Ph.D., and Jerry Sheehan, M.S.; N Engl J Med 2015; 372:174-180]
- 16. Top 5 publishing ethics challenges faced by today’s journal editors. Exploring publication ethics in the arts, humanities, and social sciences https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE%20AHSS_Survey_Key_Findings_SCREEN_AW.pdf
- 17. 72% 62% 59% 55% 50% 43% 36% 34% 29% 16% 12% 10% 12% 8% 8% 7% 0% 100% Lack of training and education in publication ethics among authors/reviewers Lack of training and education in research ethics among authors/reviewers Lack of understanding about the publication ethics standards of international journals Increase in plagiarism There are not enough peer reviewers Increase in online publication Too many papers are being submitted to journals Decline in quality of papers submitted All that are important Single most important Base: All with an opinion (633) Issues of importance in publication ethics today Lack of training and education is seen as the most important current issue, followed by that in research ethics. The international angle features highly as a perceived source of errors in publication ethics.
- 18. Issues in publication ethics 1. Carelessness Includes: Citation bias, understatement, negligence Examples: Faulty statistical analyses, research methods incomplete, selective citation, unread references Consequences: Request for correction, letter to editor
- 19. 2. Plagiarism Includes: Undisclosed sources Examples: Copying of text without references, unattributed data Consequences: Rejection or retraction of article, notification of institution Issues in publication ethics
- 20. 3. Redundancy Includes: Salami publications, self-plagiarism Examples: Publish several papers with minimal data from one study Consequences: Rejection of manuscript, copyright infringement Issues in publication ethics
- 21. 4. Unfair authorship (ghost and guest authors) Includes: Failure to include eligible authors, honorary authors Examples: Head of department Consequences: Angry colleagues, complaints to editor or institution Issues in publication ethics
- 22. 5. Undeclared conflicts of interest Includes: Personal, professional and financial Examples: Stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, board membership Consequences: Notification in the journal, possibly retraction of the article, mistrust among readers Issues in publication ethics
- 23. 6. Subject violations Includes: Human and animal Examples: No ethical review board approval for study Consequences: Rejection of manuscript, notification of institution, legal case Issues in publication ethics
- 24. 7. Fraud Includes: Fabrication and falsification Examples: Selective reporting, altering or fabricating data Consequences: Retraction of manuscript, notification of institution, funding ban Issues in publication ethics
- 25. We need a culture of responsibility for the integrity of the literature… it’s not just the job of editors Ginny Barbour COPE Chair 2012-2017
- 26. Forums and flowcharts… 10 core practices • Flowcharts • Infographics • Best practice guidelines • Discussion documents • Newsletter, presentation archives • COPE Forum cases For members: • E-Learning modules • Letter templates, Self-audit tool for journals • Seminars/workshops and webinars • COPE Forum
- 27. Infographics How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process The features or patterns of activity shown are suggested to help recognise potential signs of peer review manipulation. Often it is the occurrence of these features in combination that may indicate a potential issue.
- 28. Flowcharts
- 29. Guidelines
- 32. COPE assists editors of scholarly journals and publishers - as well as other parties, such as institutions - in their work to preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices. COPE describes these in 10 Core Practices. These should be considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for research. COPE’s Core Practices https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
- 33. 1. Allegations of misconduct Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers. 2. Authorship and contributorship Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes.
- 34. 3. Complaints and appeals Journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher. 4. Conflicts of interest There must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers, whether identified before or after publication.
- 35. 5. Data and reproducibility Journals should include policies on data availability and encourage the use of reporting guidelines and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline. 6. Ethical oversight Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices.
- 36. publicationethics.org 7. Intellectual property All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers. Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration. What constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified. 8. Journal management A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential, including the business model, policies, processes and software for efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff.
- 37. publicationethics.org 9. Peer review processes All peer review processes must be transparently described and well managed. Journals should provide training for editors and reviewers and have policies on diverse aspects of peer review, especially with respect to adoption of appropriate models of review and processes for handling conflicts of interest, appeals and disputes that may arise in peer review. 10. Post-publication discussions, corrections Journals must allow debate post publication either on their site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. They must have mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication.
- 38. Marcovitch et al Croat Med J. 2010 doi: 10.3325/cmj.2010.51.7 Staircase of misconduct
- 40. Retractions • Most serious consequence by journals • Correcting the literature not punishment • Retractions cover both honest errors and misconduct • Standards of retraction of mixed quality
- 41. In the news ?
- 42. Is misconduct on the rise? J Med Ethics 2011;37:567-570 doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964 J Med Ethics 2011;37:249-253 doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923
- 43. 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
- 44. Yet infrequently 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 scientific misconduct 2%
- 45. Is it getting more complicated? • Pressure to publish, academic incentives • International submissions • Blogs, tweets, pre-publications • Big datasets, data publications and ownership • Vulnerable populations • Multi-center collaborations • Citizen science • Different quality of journals
- 46. “...scientists feel tempted or under pressure to compromise on research integrity and standards … Suggested causes include high levels of competition in science and the pressure to publish.”
- 47. Ten principles to guide research evaluation and establish best practice in metrics-based research assessment Nature (2015) vol 520, p 429-31
- 49. An author had created fake email accounts for reviewers… people were jaw-dropped… It represented a turning point. Charon Pierson, COPE Secretary 2015-2019 Comments on COPE case #12-12 in What happens before a retraction? A behind-the- scenes look from COPE https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/22/what-happens- before-a-retraction-a-behind-the-scenes-look-from-cope/
- 50. Reviewer and author perspectives on peer review Mirjam Curno, PhD @C0PE www.publicationethics.org
- 51. Global State of Peer Review 2018 by Publons and Clarivate Analytics
- 52. Peer review types • Single-blind • Reviewers’ names not revealed to authors • Double-blind • Reviewers and authors anonymous • Open • All names revealed throughout • Review process public • Transparent • Review reports published • Reviewer names published
- 53. Peer review types • Pre-publication • Traditional • Collaborative • Transferred / Portable • Post-publication • Pre-submission
- 54. What Constitutes Peer Review of Data: A survey of published peer review guidelines Todd A Carpenter (pre-print on Arxiv)
- 56. Global State of Peer Review 2018 by Publons and Clarivate Analytics
- 57. Global State of Peer Review 2018 by Publons and Clarivate Analytics
- 58. “…when evaluating a reviewer’s work and contribution, the authors seem to be strongly influenced by the final decision on their paper: if the paper is accepted, the authors are satisfied with the review reports; if it is rejected, they judge that the wrong reviewers were chosen or that they did not perform well”
- 59. “Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. ”