Publishing and Publication Ethics AWS
Publishing and Publication Ethics HOW TO PUBLISH IN HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS
WHILE MAINTAINING
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
Peter W. Swaan, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Pharmaceutical Research
Give credit, where credit is due: Various slides courtesy of Dr. David Grainger, University of Utah
Scientific publishing can be very rewarding……
Getting a paper published It’s easy to publish in abominable journals: 1000’s of choices Competition for space in high-impact journals is intense Cost of publication can be high, $360/page for some journals, plus fees for electronic archiving of databases
Rejection rates vary, reflecting selectivity and quality: Pharmaceutical Research= 60% JBC = 65% NEJM, Science, Nature = >90%
“Publish or perish”
Common phrase to describe academic publishing: report your studies, or lose your job
Literature pollution?
Publish and perish “The Seven Serious Deadly Sins of Publishing” 1. Data manipulation, falsification 2. Duplicate manuscripts
3. Redundant publication 4. Plagiarism: uncited use of other’s language or ideas
5. Reviewing ethical abuses (rejecting a competing paper to publish own) 6. Author conflicts of interest: financial, commercial 7. Animal and human use: ethical concerns (the 3R’s: reduce, refine, replace)
Conflict of Interest declaration • Financial or personal relationship with work performed that inappropriately influences author, reviewer or editor – Employment consultancies, stock ownership, expert testimony – Same institution, relative, mentor, student, academic adversary – All “potentially perceived” rather than just “actual” conflicts should be disclosed
What makes a good research paper?
Good science Good writing Publication in good journals
What is good science? • Novel – new and not resembling something formerly known or used (note: can be novel but not significant) • Mechanistic – testing a hypothesis - determining the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon • Descriptive – describes how are things are but does not test how things work – hypotheses are not tested but information is impacting and ‘game changing’.
Is anything really novel? Let’s say you invent something… And you publish about it….. And you then make this…..
iPod Shuffle
Novel? Publish again?
Novel? Publish again? Novel? Publish again? Novel? Publish again?
(Courtesy: David Grainger, U.Utah)
Incremental research!
The MPU: “minimal publishable unit”
How thin can you make data to publish?
“Slicing the salami thin” Telling a story with minimal data… Are more publications with minimal data better than less publications of better quality?
The concept of “Literature pollution”: who wants it? who will review it? “pollution kills”
Significance: Why does anyone care about your work? Why would someone want to read your work?
Make a compelling case in the Introduction and Discussion sections for importance of approach and data. Provide a credible, logical justification for what is different and impacting and powerful in your data and approach. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE DOES NOT MEAN IT SHOULD BE DONE!
Major reasons for paper rejection
Confirmatory data (incremental, not novel) Case Study (descriptive) Poor experimental design - Poor controls - Hypothesis not adequately tested Poor quality data or unconvincing Poor statistics or significance Inappropriate for journal theme/audience Poorly written, poor communication skills
Scientific Misconduct = Serious game • Gift Authorship • Redundant Publication • Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism • Fabrication • Falsification
• Conflict of Interest Can ruin your career if you are caught!! Editors now using routine computer tools to compare published language: www.turnitin.com, www.iThenticate.com
iThenticate™ Plagiarism checking using CrossCheck, Internet and published publications
iThenticate Output in % Similarity (color coding for articles exceeding predefined threshold)
Clear example of copy-and-paste plagiarism
Color-coded summary report for PHARMRES-S-10-00591
Unacceptable Copying from single source
Not always a clear-cut tool: needs inspection by experienced Editor to judge degree of perceived plagiarism
Where do most articles fall? Ithenticate Similarity Percentages (JanuarySeptember 2010) 40
35
30
Number of Articles
January 25
February March April
20
May June
15
July August
10
September 5
0 0-9%
10-19%
20-29% Percent Similarity
30-39%
40+%
Where do we put the line? • All manuscripts screened before assignment • 40% automatic Triage by EIC encouraging authors to familiarize themselves with Ethics in Publication guidelines • Repeat offenders: Letters to co-authors, department chair, dean
Common Rebuttals • But I am just copying my own work! – Once paper is published, copyright transfers to publisher • I just copied the methods sections. Everyone does that! – Some copying of methods is acceptable; however, large verbatim sections including multiple sentences/paragraphs is discouraged – Advice: “as performed previously (1), with the following modifications:”
Self-Plagiarism: a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work. Copyright law: “protects original works of authorship” (www.copyright.gov) Chicago Manual of Style (2010, pg. 142): provides author responsibilities in guaranteeing authorship: “In signing a contract with a publisher an author guarantees that the work is original, that the author owns it, that no part of it has been previously published, and that no other agreement to publish it or part of it is outstanding” Self plagiarism violates the authors’ copyright agreement with the publisher as a “rule of thumb, one should never quote more than a few contiguous paragraphs or stanzas at a time or let the quotations, even scattered, begin to overshadow the quoter’s own material” (pg. 146). “The Ethics of Self-plagiarism” , www.ITHENTICATE.com, accessed September, 2011) The University of Chicago Press. (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style Chicago. 16th Edition. “Plagiarize.” (2011). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com. “Plagiarism, n.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. “Plagiarize, v.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed. ). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. Roig, Miguel. (2006). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism.doc
Redundant Publication = Fraud • “Substantial overlap” with another manuscript in print or in electronic media • Preliminary reporting to media, government agencies or manufactures violates editorial policy of many journals • Related work should be referred to and cited • Consider including copies of related material with submissions to editor • Does not apply to presentations at scientific conferences
What is a “redundant publication”?
• • • • •
Data in conference abstract? No Same data, different journal? Yes Data on website? Maybe Data included in review article? OK if later Expansion of published data set? Yes
Publication ethics and wrong-doing: mistakes or misconduct? Author responsibility to notify the scientific community of any mistake that changes the message of the publication: Course of action: Retraction?
R. Van Noorden Nature 478 26 2011
R. Van Noorden Nature 478 26 2011
Question? Concerns? Feedback? [email protected]
Lost in the Citation Valley Valley of Death = Valley of Impact
Pasterkamp, Hoefer & Prakken. Lost in the citation valley. Nature Biotechnology 34:1016 (2016)
Timeline of journal impact of a cholesterylester transfer protein inhibitor (CETP)
Pasterkamp, Hoefer & Prakken. Lost in the citation valley. Nature Biotechnology 34:1016 (2016)
WHILE MAINTAINING
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
Peter W. Swaan, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Pharmaceutical Research
Give credit, where credit is due: Various slides courtesy of Dr. David Grainger, University of Utah
Scientific publishing can be very rewarding……
Getting a paper published It’s easy to publish in abominable journals: 1000’s of choices Competition for space in high-impact journals is intense Cost of publication can be high, $360/page for some journals, plus fees for electronic archiving of databases
Rejection rates vary, reflecting selectivity and quality: Pharmaceutical Research= 60% JBC = 65% NEJM, Science, Nature = >90%
“Publish or perish”
Common phrase to describe academic publishing: report your studies, or lose your job
Literature pollution?
Publish and perish “The Seven Serious Deadly Sins of Publishing” 1. Data manipulation, falsification 2. Duplicate manuscripts
3. Redundant publication 4. Plagiarism: uncited use of other’s language or ideas
5. Reviewing ethical abuses (rejecting a competing paper to publish own) 6. Author conflicts of interest: financial, commercial 7. Animal and human use: ethical concerns (the 3R’s: reduce, refine, replace)
Conflict of Interest declaration • Financial or personal relationship with work performed that inappropriately influences author, reviewer or editor – Employment consultancies, stock ownership, expert testimony – Same institution, relative, mentor, student, academic adversary – All “potentially perceived” rather than just “actual” conflicts should be disclosed
What makes a good research paper?
Good science Good writing Publication in good journals
What is good science? • Novel – new and not resembling something formerly known or used (note: can be novel but not significant) • Mechanistic – testing a hypothesis - determining the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon • Descriptive – describes how are things are but does not test how things work – hypotheses are not tested but information is impacting and ‘game changing’.
Is anything really novel? Let’s say you invent something… And you publish about it….. And you then make this…..
iPod Shuffle
Novel? Publish again?
Novel? Publish again? Novel? Publish again? Novel? Publish again?
(Courtesy: David Grainger, U.Utah)
Incremental research!
The MPU: “minimal publishable unit”
How thin can you make data to publish?
“Slicing the salami thin” Telling a story with minimal data… Are more publications with minimal data better than less publications of better quality?
The concept of “Literature pollution”: who wants it? who will review it? “pollution kills”
Significance: Why does anyone care about your work? Why would someone want to read your work?
Make a compelling case in the Introduction and Discussion sections for importance of approach and data. Provide a credible, logical justification for what is different and impacting and powerful in your data and approach. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE DOES NOT MEAN IT SHOULD BE DONE!
Major reasons for paper rejection
Confirmatory data (incremental, not novel) Case Study (descriptive) Poor experimental design - Poor controls - Hypothesis not adequately tested Poor quality data or unconvincing Poor statistics or significance Inappropriate for journal theme/audience Poorly written, poor communication skills
Scientific Misconduct = Serious game • Gift Authorship • Redundant Publication • Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism • Fabrication • Falsification
• Conflict of Interest Can ruin your career if you are caught!! Editors now using routine computer tools to compare published language: www.turnitin.com, www.iThenticate.com
iThenticate™ Plagiarism checking using CrossCheck, Internet and published publications
iThenticate Output in % Similarity (color coding for articles exceeding predefined threshold)
Clear example of copy-and-paste plagiarism
Color-coded summary report for PHARMRES-S-10-00591
Unacceptable Copying from single source
Not always a clear-cut tool: needs inspection by experienced Editor to judge degree of perceived plagiarism
Where do most articles fall? Ithenticate Similarity Percentages (JanuarySeptember 2010) 40
35
30
Number of Articles
January 25
February March April
20
May June
15
July August
10
September 5
0 0-9%
10-19%
20-29% Percent Similarity
30-39%
40+%
Where do we put the line? • All manuscripts screened before assignment • 40% automatic Triage by EIC encouraging authors to familiarize themselves with Ethics in Publication guidelines • Repeat offenders: Letters to co-authors, department chair, dean
Common Rebuttals • But I am just copying my own work! – Once paper is published, copyright transfers to publisher • I just copied the methods sections. Everyone does that! – Some copying of methods is acceptable; however, large verbatim sections including multiple sentences/paragraphs is discouraged – Advice: “as performed previously (1), with the following modifications:”
Self-Plagiarism: a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work. Copyright law: “protects original works of authorship” (www.copyright.gov) Chicago Manual of Style (2010, pg. 142): provides author responsibilities in guaranteeing authorship: “In signing a contract with a publisher an author guarantees that the work is original, that the author owns it, that no part of it has been previously published, and that no other agreement to publish it or part of it is outstanding” Self plagiarism violates the authors’ copyright agreement with the publisher as a “rule of thumb, one should never quote more than a few contiguous paragraphs or stanzas at a time or let the quotations, even scattered, begin to overshadow the quoter’s own material” (pg. 146). “The Ethics of Self-plagiarism” , www.ITHENTICATE.com, accessed September, 2011) The University of Chicago Press. (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style Chicago. 16th Edition. “Plagiarize.” (2011). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com. “Plagiarism, n.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. “Plagiarize, v.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed. ). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. Roig, Miguel. (2006). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism.doc
Redundant Publication = Fraud • “Substantial overlap” with another manuscript in print or in electronic media • Preliminary reporting to media, government agencies or manufactures violates editorial policy of many journals • Related work should be referred to and cited • Consider including copies of related material with submissions to editor • Does not apply to presentations at scientific conferences
What is a “redundant publication”?
• • • • •
Data in conference abstract? No Same data, different journal? Yes Data on website? Maybe Data included in review article? OK if later Expansion of published data set? Yes
Publication ethics and wrong-doing: mistakes or misconduct? Author responsibility to notify the scientific community of any mistake that changes the message of the publication: Course of action: Retraction?
R. Van Noorden Nature 478 26 2011
R. Van Noorden Nature 478 26 2011
Question? Concerns? Feedback? [email protected]
Lost in the Citation Valley Valley of Death = Valley of Impact
Pasterkamp, Hoefer & Prakken. Lost in the citation valley. Nature Biotechnology 34:1016 (2016)
Timeline of journal impact of a cholesterylester transfer protein inhibitor (CETP)
Pasterkamp, Hoefer & Prakken. Lost in the citation valley. Nature Biotechnology 34:1016 (2016)
