Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
•
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.
• 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?
•
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.