Why Current Publication

Practices May Distort Science

Prepared & presented by :
Dr .Suzan Abdelhalim Abdallah
Faculty of Science , Benha University
Member of Benha University Center for FLD
June 2010
 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
• The current Federal definition of scientific misconduct (and one that is
used by most universities and publishers) is "...fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting
research results..." (73). Fabrication is defined as recording or presenting
(in any format) fictitious data. Falsification is manipulating data or
experimental procedures to produce a desired outcome or to avoid a
complicating or inexplicable result. Plagiarism is using someone else’s
words, ideas, or results without attribution. In order for an action to be
considered misconduct, it must be a "...serious deviation from accepted
practices..." of the relevant research community, have been "...committed
intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly...", and it must be "...proven by a
preponderance of evidence..." (73). Research misconduct does not include
legitimate differences of opinion. While it is always difficult to legislate
appropriate standards of behavior, it was the intent and responsibility of
the Federal Government to ensure that publicly funded research is above
reproach. The first two regulations covering human and animal
experimentation that were enacted by Congress were the 1974 National
Research Act (PL 99–158) and the Animal Welfare Act (PL 89–544, 1986).
 Ethics and scientific publication
plagiarism
• The ORI considers plagiarism as :
The misappropriation of intellectual property.
The substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work.
The theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes:
• The unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by a
privileged communication, such as:
• a grant
• or manuscript review.
• Substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work means
the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences
or paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader
regarding the contributions of the author.“
 In biomedical research
• Summary
• The current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view
of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic. This
system can be studied by applying principles from the field of economics. The
“winner's curse,” a more general statement of publication bias, suggests that the
small proportion of results chosen for publication are unrepresentative of
scientists' repeated samplings of the real world. The self-correcting mechanism in
science is retarded by the extreme imbalance between the abundance of supply
(the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the
increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact).
This system would be expected intrinsically to lead to the misallocation of
resources. The scarcity of available outlets is artificial, based on the costs of
printing in an electronic age and a belief that selectivity is equivalent to quality.
Science is subject to great uncertainty: we cannot be confident now which efforts
will ultimately yield worthwhile achievements. However, the current system
abdicates to a small number of intermediates an authoritative prescience to
anticipate a highly unpredictable future. In considering society's expectations and
our own goals as scientists, we believe that there is a moral imperative to
reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.
 Case study 1.
•
A scientist has submitted a manuscript to a journal for publication.
Three reviewers reviewed the manuscript. One reviewer claims
plagiarism has occurred and cites three examples of paragraphs in
the submitted paper that have been copied verbatim or
substantively from other works. The journal editor rejects the
manuscript for other reasons, but fails to mention in his cover letter
to the manuscript author the alleged plagiarism. In fact, the editor
encourages the author to revise and resubmit his manuscript
elsewhere. A coauthor, on reading the reviews, immediately
contacts her departmental chair and journal editor about this
incident, and states that indeed the cited examples were
plagiarized, unknown to her, because they were added to the final
version (which she did not see just before submission). What should
be done?
 Case study 2.
• A review article written by a prominent researcher was
published in a high-profile journal. A reader writes to that
journal’s publication committee stating that large portions
of the review article contained verbatim sentences and
complete paragraphs of a book chapter published some
years earlier. Neither of the two authors of the book
chapter was the author of the review article. The book
chapter was not referenced in the review article. When
contacted, the author produced a copy of a newly revised
version of that book chapter in which he is now included as
a third author. What should be done?

•
 Continued Case 1
Questions for discussion
•
:
What are the of all of the parties involved?
responsibilities
• What type of communication with the author or authors is necessary and who
must approve the communication and have access to it?
• What explanations would be acceptable to a publications committee, and if no
acceptable explanation is provided, what recourse does the committee have?
• If the author is found guilty of the allegation, what punishment is fitting? What
do you see as possible mitigating factors in the decision?
• Because the departmental chair has already been notified, what should the
interface between the institution and publication committee be?
• What strategies might an editor or publications committee implement to
increase detection and expedite handling of plagiarism allegations?
• Continued Case 2
• Questions for discussion:
•
Is this self-plagiarism? If so, is self-plagiarism permissible?
• How might plagiarism or even appearances of plagiarism
jeopardize the reputation of an author or authors?
• How should the author’s home institution handle
situations such as this?
 REDUNDANT PUBLICATION
• Redundant publications constitute a special type of plagiarism. Redundant
publication is sometimes equated to duplicate publication.

• Here we define redundant (or repetitive) publication as

• The publication of copyrighted material with additional new or unpublished
data (25). Thus we mean by redundant publication the republishing of a part
or parts of an already published article, not the entire article.
• There are a number of reasons why redundant publication is unethical (32)

• . First, it may infringe international copyright law. Second, duplication of data

with additional new data wastes the valuable time of expert peer reviewers.
Third, it needlessly expands the already extensive body of published literature.
Fourth, it confounds scientific communication by dividing rather than combining
closely related data from a single group. Fifth, it may unduly overemphasize the
importance of the findings by having them appear more than once. Sixth, it may
interfere with subsequent meta-analysis by apparently boosting patient or
experimental numbers
 Specific recommendations with
regard to redundant publication
• COPE has made some specific recommendations with regard to redundant
publication:
• 1) published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is
required
• 2) Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does
not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be
made at the time of submission.
• 3) Republication of or data contained in an article previously published in
another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent
disclosure of its original source at the time of submission
• 4) At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers,
even if in a different language, and similar papers in press. In fact, many journals
require copies of those related manuscripts at the time of submission. The point to
be made here is that authors should not attempt to republish data that has
already appeared in a journal. If an author considers those previously published
data essential, he/she should repeat the experiment or part of an experiment and
include new data, even if that experiment has already been published.
• .
 Continued (redundant publication)
Case Study 1
•

• An associate editor, during the review of a manuscript, related to the editor

a concern raised by one reviewer that certain data in the submitted paper (2
panels of a 6-panel figure) appeared in an earlier publication (different
journal) from the senior author’s laboratory. In the text and in the figure
legend, the authors refer the reader to the earlier publication. What should
be done?
• Questions for discussion:
• What explanations from the author are acceptable?
• If the author used the data from the two published panels in the text instead
of reproducing the panels themselves, is the practice acceptable?
• If it were determined that the same data were used, what action should be
taken?
 Continued (redundant publication)
Case Study 2
• A manuscript was submitted to your journal. During review, one of the referees
noticed that the mean arterial blood pressure, total body weight, and glomerular
filtration rate on sham-operated male and female rats appeared identical to data
included in an article published in another journal by the same authors a year
earlier. The similarity extended to the same number of animals used and the
same error on each of the aforementioned data. When queried, the author
became irritated and asked, "Why shouldn’t these data be identical? These are
the same animal groups." He went on to argue that the point of the two articles
were different. What should be done?
• Questions for discussion:
• Should these control data be deleted from the submitted manuscript?
• Would it be permissible to republish data if new experiments were added (under
the identical conditions) in the second manuscript?
• Would it be permissible to republish data in a second paper submitted to a journal
with an entirely different readership than the first?
• What are the scientific benefits of republishing data? What are the shortcomings?
 DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
• Duplicate publication is defined as the publication of an article that is identical or overlaps substantially with an article already
published elsewhere, with or without acknowledgment (11, 36). It can be classified as self-plagiarism. It is also a subset of
redundant publication in that two papers share the same hypothesis, results, and conclusions (15). In some cases, the same
authors are arranged in a different sequence (3).
• Why do scientists attempt to republish the same article? One reason may be the perception that to survive in the highly
competitive biomedical science field, individuals are required to achieve voluminous curriculum vitae. There is some truth in the
contention that the number (rather than the quality) of publication is an important factor for promotion and academic
advancement and as a measure of productivity in assessing grant applications (1). Another, more justifiable reason, at least
before the advent of the world wide web, is the authors desire to reach readers that would not necessarily be familiar with the
particular journal in which the article was first published (for example, if the article was published in Chinese in a relatively
inaccessible journal). An author must secure the permission of both journals before even attempting to republish the same paper.
• Why is duplicate publication considered misconduct? Aside from the obvious attempt to inflate one’s own publication record,
duplication (and redundant) publication has the potential to skew the evidence base (65). If the same data were counted twice (or
more), the outcomes of meta-analysis used to establish the best practice would be invalid. For instance, Tramer et al. (75)
performed a systematic search of all published full reports of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of a drug,
ondansetron, on postoperative emesis. They found that 17% of published reports of trials of the drug were duplicates and 28% of
the patient data were duplicated. This led to an overestimation of this drug’s efficacy by 23%. It should be evident from this one
example that duplicate publication is a threat for scientists conducting systematic reviews and, more importantly, biases the
conclusions on drug efficacy and safety (63).
• Guidelines on good publication practice state that the authors can only submit their manuscript to a single journal at a time.
Authors may resubmit the same or a revised version to another journal only if the first journal makes the decision not to publish
it, or it is withdrawn by the author. In spite of this universally accepted criterion, double submission still occurs and continues to
be a real problem for scientific journals.
• Most journals do not wish to receive articles on work that has already been reported in a published article or is contained in
another manuscript that has been submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere, either in print or in electronic format. The
submitted manuscripts and data contained within must be original. Almost all journals have similar guidelines concerning
redundant publications. The American Physiological Society Ethical Policies state that "...the journals of the APS only accept
research papers that are original work, no part of which has been submitted for publication elsewhere except as a brief (i.e., <400
words) abstract. When submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author should include copies of related manuscripts
submitted or in press elsewhere."(5).
 Continued DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
• Why is duplicate publication considered misconduct? Aside from the obvious attempt to inflate
one’s own publication record, duplication (and redundant) publication has the potential to skew
the evidence base (65). If the same data were counted twice (or more), the outcomes of meta-
analysis used to establish the best practice would be invalid. For instance, Tramer et al. (75)
performed a systematic search of all published full reports of randomized controlled trials to
investigate the effect of a drug, ondansetron, on postoperative emesis. They found that 17% of
published reports of trials of the drug were duplicates and 28% of the patient data were
duplicated. This led to an overestimation of this drug’s efficacy by 23%. It should be evident from
this one example that duplicate publication is a threat for scientists conducting systematic reviews
and, more importantly, biases the conclusions on drug efficacy and safety (63).
• Guidelines on good publication practice state that the authors can only submit their manuscript to
a single journal at a time. Authors may resubmit the same or a revised version to another journal
only if the first journal makes the decision not to publish it, or it is withdrawn by the author. In
spite of this universally accepted criterion, double submission still occurs and continues to be a real
problem for scientific journals.
• Most journals do not wish to receive articles on work that has already been reported in a published
article or is contained in another manuscript that has been submitted or accepted for publication
elsewhere, either in print or in electronic format. The submitted manuscripts and data contained
within must be original. Almost all journals have similar guidelines concerning redundant
publications. The American Physiological Society Ethical Policies state that
 The journals of the APS only accept
research papers that are original
work
• No part of which has been submitted for
publication elsewhere except as a brief (i.e.,
<400 words) abstract.
• When submitting a manuscript, the
corresponding author should include copies
of related manuscripts submitted or in press
elsewhere."(5).
 Secondary publication
• Some journals permit secondary publication of an article in the same or in
another language, especially in other countries. This practice may be
justifiable and beneficial provided that all of the following conditions are
met:
• 1) the author has received approval from the editors of both journals; the
editor concerned with secondary publication must have a photocopy,
reprint, or manuscript of the primary version; 2)
• the priority of the primary publication is respected by a publication
interval of at least 1 wk (unless specially negotiated otherwise by both
editors); 3)
• the paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of
readers (an abbreviated version could be sufficient)
• ; 4) the secondary version reflects faithfully the data and interpretations
of the primary version;
• 5) a footnote of the title page of the secondary version informs readers,
peers, and documenting agencies that the paper has been published in
whole or in part and states the primary reference (a suitable footnote
might read as follows: "This article was first published in the [title of
journal, with full reference].");
• 6) permission of such secondary publication should be free of charge (62).
 Continued Secondary publication
• With the availability of computerized medical databases, including
databases of dissertations, scientific proceedings, and research articles,
such as PubMed or HighWire Press, it becomes much more difficult for
authors to duplicate previously published work (1). Once a duplicate
publication is discovered and reported by peer reviewers, journals can
promptly reject the submitted papers, or retract the article if it has been
published. If the editor was not aware of the violations and the article
has already been published, then a notice of duplicate publication will be
published with or without the author’s explanation or approval. The
notice is cited in PubMed, which can have serious impact on the
reputation of the author(s) (36). The journal editor may choose to send
the information to other journals, or to the head of the authors’
institutions. Time-limited sanctions, including a ban from publishing in
those journals, can be imposed. The editors of both journals may join to
condemn publicly this unethical behavior and organize committees to
help each other in the investigation of such cases. In some cases, authors
may have to confront a civil suit for international copyright law violation
(1).
Continued Secondary publication
• Case study 1 .

• A manuscript has been sent to your journal. It was sent to two peer reviewers, both of whom
recommend acceptance. However, after one of these two reviewers posted his review, he
discovered the authors have just published another very closely related paper in another
journal, which apparently was submitted at the same time as the one they sent to your journal.
Basically, both papers examined mechanisms of apoptosis in isolated cells and reached the
same conclusions as to mechanism. In actuality, the paper that was published was more
interesting and definitive because it was more clinically relevant to the disease being studied.
The reviewer, who pointed out this previously published article, also noted the authors did not
cross reference nor allude to the existence of the other article at the time of the initial
submission. A perusal of both manuscripts reveals that the same number of figures is present,
but in the first manuscript, the apoptotic stimulus was a bacterium and in the second it was a
specific cytokine. The organizations of both papers are very similar. What should be done?

• Questions for discussion:

• What are the actions that should be taken by editors?
• What if the author responds indignantly stating that the main focus and message of each paper were
basically different?
• What if one of the authors says that he or she had been unaware of the submission of the other article?
• What if the authors emphasize the difference between two apoptotic stimuli and suggest that bacterial LPS
mentioned in the first paper may induce other apoptotic mechanisms, but the specific cytokine mentioned in
the second paper may not?
• What is the best way for the authors and journals to resolve this matter?
 Continued Secondary publication
• Case study 2.
• A manuscript was submitted to your journal. It had a single author from a country other than the United States.
During the review process, one of the reviewers contacted the handling editor, telling her that he remembered
recently reviewing a similar paper for another journal. That paper, however, had multiple authors and a different
title, but the contents were virtually identical. When you (as Publication Committee Chair) contacted the editor of
the other journal, you learned that the two papers were indeed identical except for the author list and title. What
should be done?

• Questions for discussion:

• Should a letter be sent to only the author of the current submission or all of the authors from the previous
submission notifying them about and asking for an explanation for the duplicate submission?
• What are some of the explanations for the duplicate submission that would be acceptable? What are not
acceptable explanations from the author?
• If the explanations given are acceptable, what actions, if any, should be taken against the author? Should these
apply to all the authors or just the one who is the author of the current submission? What are some actions that
one should take if the explanations given are not acceptable?
• What action would you recommend concerning an author who has a history of duplicate submissions? How far can
a journal go
 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

• University employees who fulfill professional obligations

objectively sometimes face an unpleasant but unavoidable
situation when a conflict exists between their official
responsibilities and their private interests. A person who
finds him/herself in such a situation may knowingly or
unknowingly make questionable decisions. Such conflicting
situations arise not only because of money but also because
of factors like political affiliation, religious conviction, and
personal relationships. The consequences of such decisions
or actions take on another dimension when the scientists in
question are people in leadership or supervisory positions.
Even a perception of bias can be just as damaging as the
real thing.
 Funding research articles
• The Bayh-Dole Act, passed into law in 1980 (17), permitted and encouraged the
commercialization of federal government-supported research by allowing the
patenting of results of research carried out using government funds. Universities
and individual scientists could own the rights to these patents. This action
encouraged universities and researchers to develop their inventions into
marketable products. This act also accelerated the interactions of academia with
industry and biotech companies. In 1995, NIH policy changes did away with many
of the restrictions on its own employees with respect to outside consulting in an
attempt to attract highly qualified and respected researchers into its fold. This
action included removing the limits on the dollar amount that NIH employees
could earn or the time that they could invest in outside activities, provided it did
not interfere with their work at NIH. Employees could now accept stocks and stock
options besides money in return for their services. To provide specific guidelines
for these activities, the PHS promulgated regulations that institutions that apply
for research funding from the PHS could follow. NIH requires grantees and
investigators to comply with the requirements of Code 42 of Federal Regulations
Part 50, Subpart F, Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in
Research for Which PHS Funding is Sought (51). In fact, at most (if not all)
universities, key personnel on a research funding application must sign a Conflict
of Interest form.
 Reregulation
• The intent of the regulation is to promote "...objectivity in research by
establishing standards to ensure there is no reasonable expectation that
the design, conduct, or reporting of research funded under PHS grants or
cooperative agreements will be biased by any conflicting financial interest
of an investigator..." (10, 26, 47, 48, 72). The important issue is that the
individual scientist fully discloses any source of income outside of his/her
normal employment. In Alabama, for example, any state employee whose
salary exceeds $50,000 per annum must file a yearly disclosure form to
the State Ethics Commission. Nonetheless, the road is still rocky. In the
September 24, 2004, edition of the Washington Post, an article by Rick
Weiss appeared highlighting the current turmoil at NIH concerning
conflicts of interest (77). NIH has effectively banned (for at least one year)
any of its intramural scientists from collaborating with pharmaceutical or
biotech companies. Even existing collaborations must be terminated. This
action was prompted by the discovery of numerous improprieties with
regard to nontransparency of conflict of intent issues (23, 40, 46).
 Conflicts
• The fact that conflicts also exist within journals is not difficult
to appreciate. Many journals, especially clinical journals,
depend heavily on advertising (see Ref. 41). Review articles
that acknowledge sponsorship by industry may possibly draw
conclusions that are favorable to the industry. This concern
led the New England Journal of Medicine to prohibit authors
from writing review articles if they held a financial interest in
a company. Even if they divested all financial ties to industry,
there would still be a two-year hiatus from writing review
articles about research involving companies from which
support was received. This prohibition has recently been
rescinded primarily because of the difficulty of finding
authors that were completely free of industry ties (6, 54).
 Objectivity in Research
• Under the final rule on "Objectivity in Research" in the CFR, investigators are required to
disclose a listing of "significant financial interests" that would reasonably appear to
influence the research proposed for funding by the PHS. "Financial interest" means
anything of monetary value, including, but not limited to, the following:

• 1) salary or other payments for services (consulting fees or honoraria); 2) equity

interests (stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests); and
• 3) intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights).
Davidoff et al. (18) wrote a concise summary of conflict of interest policies for clinical
journals.
• An investigator’s financial interest in an external entity is considered to be "significant"
and must be disclosed if it exceeds either one of the following: 1) $10,000 per annum for
any combination of salary, payments for services, equity, and income from intellectual
property rights; or 2) 5% ownership interest.

• Examples of how financial conflicts of interest might be addressed include

• 1) public disclosure of significant financial interests;
• 2) monitoring of research by independent reviewers; 3) modification of the research
plan; 4) disqualification from participation in all or a portion of the research funded by
PHS;
 financial conflicts
• Case study 1.
• A paper has been submitted to a journal, and after two rounds of thorough scientific review, is
accepted for publication. Just hours before web posting of this manuscript, the editor received a
panicked call from the communicating author who said that a problem had arisen. A major drug
company that had sponsored the research disputed the authors’ right to submit the manuscript
because the authors and the company signed a contract specifically stating that the company must
agree with the contents of the manuscript before submission. The company did not agree with the
authors’ conclusions. The company made it clear to the authors that it was prepared to bring legal
action against them and the journal if the paper was not immediately withdrawn. What should be
done?
• Questions for discussion:
• Is it appropriate for the drug company to bring legal action against the authors and the journal?
• In case the drug company disagrees with the content of the paper and exercises its legal right to
prevent the paper from being published, would it be justified to hold back information from the
scientific community and the general public, given that the editors of the journal have deemed the
contents of the paper novel, significant, and hence publishable?
• Who should bear responsibility for such miscommunication between the authors and the
sponsoring agency?
• What should a journal’s stance be on industry-sponsored research?
• Should findings of sponsored research always be viewed with distrust as being biased towards the
funding agency?
 Continued
financial conflicts
Case study 2
• The Director of Publications receives a letter from an irate reader complaining that the
journal did not publish a financial disclosure from an author of a review article that was
published 6 mo earlier. At the time, the journal did not have a policy on conflict of
interest that covered review articles. This reader was not dissuaded by any argument.
He/she continued to write, demanding that "...an honest disclosure of competing
financial interest..." of the authors be acknowledged in print. The author’s response
was that this individual had been harassing him over this issue for years, mainly
because of a personal scientific vendetta. The author has, in the past, freely disclosed
his finances if asked, but feels in this case that it is not appropriate, given the policies of
the journal at the time. What should be done?

• Questions for discussion:

• Should the journal publish a retrospective disclosure?
• What are appropriate journal policies concerning conflict of interest disclosures?
 Acknowledgment
• GRANTS
• The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants DK-37206, DK-
53090, CA-97247, and CA-10195.
• Acknowledgments
• We thank Margaret Reich, Director of Publications and Executive Editor of the APS, and Samuel Tilden, MD, JD,
Research Compliance Officer at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, for their helpful discussions and
comments on the manuscript. We also thank Drs. Harold Kincaid, Scott Snyder, and Wayne Sullender for
illuminating discussions on research ethical matters. We thank Cathleen Guy for expert assistance in the
preparation of the manuscript. We especially thank Janice Phillips and Jennifer Coleman for compiling all of the
publication data from the APS journals.
• Footnotes
• 1 The CFR is a compilation of all the regulations issued by all of the agencies of the United States Federal
Government. The United States Code (USC) is the compilation of all permanent laws of the United States. Laws and
regulations are different. Only Congress can enact laws. Federal agencies issue regulations to enforce and ensure
compliance with laws. The USC is published every 6 yr by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United
States House of Representatives. The CFR is amended as needed. These agency-approved amendments, or
proposed amendments, appear in the Federal Register, which is published daily. The Federal Register also
publishes notices of the Federal agencies, executive orders, and other executive branch documents. Federal
regulations may have the force of law and can be enforced by the government agencies but are not laws
themselves. Regulations can only be developed by agencies if laws permit them to do so, i.e., there is an enabling
statute. All three of these publications can be accessed and searched from the web site of the United States
Government Printing Office (www.gpoaccess.gov).
• Received for publication October 15, 2004. Accepted for publication January 27, 2005.
 REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITY
• Click to obtain permission for other than one-time, educational use.
(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds.
If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)
Click on image to view larger version.
•

•
Fig. 5. Flow diagram of review and publication process for a manuscript
submitted to a journal (adapted from Fig. 1 of Ref. 73).
•

•
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  Fig. 5. Flow diagram of review and publication process for a manuscript
submitted to a journal (adapted from Fig. 1 of Ref. 73).
 REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITY
• Case study 1.
• .
• The journal editor sent a paper to an outside referee to review. The editor’s cover letter specifically stated that if the reviewer is unable to provide a review in the time frame specified, the reviewer may ask a
colleague to assist. The senior author of that manuscript, by chance, was visiting the institution of the reviewer after the paper was submitted to the journal. During her visit, she was being escorted through the
laboratory of the reviewer and noticed, in a reception area, multiple copies of her manuscript on a coffee table. She asked her escort (a graduate student of this laboratory) about the papers on the table. The
graduate student, who was unaware that she was the author of the manuscript on the desk, stated that as part of the laboratory’s Journal Club they do group reviews of manuscripts that the senior investigator has
been asked to review. On returning to her own laboratory, she telephoned the editor with the complaint that her manuscript was circulated among her research competitors at another university. The editor, in turn,
telephoned the reviewer who stated that he routinely asks his laboratory to review manuscripts as a group, primarily because of the teaching value of such an experience. The "review group" consists of graduate
students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty members. In general, the reviewer assembles all the comments into one review, signs the forms, and takes responsibility for the review. The reviewer felt that the
procedure produces well-done reviews containing lots of constructive criticism.
• Questions for discussion:
• Is this review group permitted according to the editor’s cover letter?
• If the reviewer takes all the responsibility by signing the forms, can he discuss the articles with his review group?
• Is the review valid?
• What should the editor do with this reviewer?
• Can the editor continue sending papers for review to this reviewer?

•
 REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITY
• Case study 2.
• A paper was submitted to your journal. The review process was quite extensive, the paper having
undergone several rounds of peer review. Part of the delay was caused by the authors not revising the
paper in a timely fashion. The paper was also delayed by one of the reviewers in that very demanding
revisions were required. After the paper was resubmitted a third time, the corresponding author wrote to
the editor stating that she saw a similar paper that was just published on the web within the last week. The
author asked a very specific question, "I have been wondering whether anyone in the [authorship] in the
recently published paper was acting as a reviewer of our paper? Of course, that would raise an ethical
issue because of the quite obvious conflict of interest. Although I do not pretend to know the identity of
the referees, I feel justified to seek an answer to this question." On examination, the editor discovers that
yes; indeed, one of the authors of the previously published paper was one of the three reviewers of the
manuscript in question. Moreover, it was the same reviewer who demanded extensive revisions. What
should be done?
• Questions for discussion:
• Who is responsible for the delay? The reviewer, the authors, or both.
• What were the comments of other reviewers? Did they agree that the manuscript needed the changes
recommended in the first submissions?
• Did the reviewer intentionally delay the publication?
• Should the reviewer inform the editor of a conflict of interest?
• What action should be taken? Inform the author? Apology? Published statement? Publish the paper?
• If there were misconduct, should the reviewer be dismissed from the review board of the journal and
should there be a letter of reprimand?
• Is there any plagiarism from the manuscript in the published paper (by the reviewer)?
 CONCLUDING REMARKS

• Walter B. Cannon in his book, The Way of an Investigator (13), remarked that a scientist, among
other essential traits, "... must be ingenuously honest." A scientist "... must face facts as they arise
in the course of experimental procedure, whether they are favorable to his idea or not." It is only in
this way, from each of us, that the pillars of scientific integrity remain strong. In this article, we
have summarized most of the common aberrations of scientific conduct that are encountered in
the publication process. We emphasize that they are aberrations: by far and away, the vast
majority of scientists and science is pure and true. This is precisely why any actions that may
compromise this truth must be dealt with swiftly and fairly. The APS publications program has
evolved procedures for handling accusations of ethical violations. These procedures are printed on
the inside back cover of each issue of every journal that the Society publishes, as well as on the APS
web site (http://ww.the-aps.org/publications/journals/apsethic.htm). We think these procedures
are sound, and should be adopted by every publisher. They ensure confidentiality, impartiality,
multiple levels of adjudication, and above all fairness. They have been designed so that the accused
is not assumed guilty of the alleged infraction, and that he/she has every opportunity to present
his/her side of the story. These procedures have also been designed to preserve the validity of the
scientific record and protect authors and journals alike from unscrupulous and unfounded
allegations. Ultimately, however, sound science depends on sound scientists. It is imperative for all
of us to be aware of potentially compromising ethical situations, and to continue our own
education in proper experimental techniques and publication practices. It is only in this way that
each of our individual excursions into scientific inquiry can forever contribute to the joy of
formulating new knowledge.