Elsevier

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volume 82, Issue 3, September 2015, Pages 439-442
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Special article
Ethics in publication

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.05.019Get rights and content

Section snippets

Overview

The opportunity has never been greater for publishing scientific articles in traditional and open-access journals. The pressure to publish is intense with increasing competition for research resources and rewards for academic promotion. At the same time, the ability to search the web for big data provides powerful tools to compare new manuscripts with articles already published. In these times, it is increasingly important to ensure that scientific publication preserves its core values, to

Current guidelines

Issues of scientific misconduct, and particularly issues of publication ethics, are addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, www.icmje.org) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, www.publicationethics.org) to which our journals subscribe. Both groups provide valuable definitions and management algorithms for issues ranging from plagiarism and authorship disputes to data falsification. To avoid personal bias and misunderstanding, both groups provide

Text recycling or “Self plagiarism”

Many authors, including ourselves, are often asked to write review articles or editorials on the same topic for many different journals or books. It is very challenging to rephrase the same ideas in different words each time. The key principle is whether novel information is being provided in each publication. As suggested by COPE, “Action should be considered when text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or

Duplicate publication

Duplicate publication is a specific and more common type of misconduct in which the same scientific content is re-published in another article. Its most egregious form is the simple re-publication of the same scientific study in two different journals. We recently noted that some manuscripts submitted to our journals had already appeared in non-PubMed–cited online journals. More common is the publication of a simple update of an article with minimal novel scientific information, such as an

Management of suspected text recycling, plagiarism, and duplicate publication

Detection of clear plagiarism or scientific misconduct requires retraction of an article. When such violations are suspected, often through software crosschecks, editors are obliged to address concerns with the corresponding author using the COPE guidelines. Typically, the editor will contact the author requesting an explanation of the suspect material. In the event that a simple oversight is identified and corrected, no further action is needed. In more egregious cases, editors are obliged to

Data fabrication

Data falsification can take many forms from overt to subtle. Clear-cut fabrication of results has no place in scientific literature. It can be difficult to identify and often is found only when co-authors or collaborators find serious questions about a manuscript and bring them to attention. In one case, a reviewer of a manuscript provided evidence that the data presented in no way could have been collected by the submitting authors. Journals must rely heavily on the honor system because they

Authorship

Authorship is one of the most commonly disputed and most contentious areas of scientific publication. Many academic medical centers base promotion and even salary on publication and authorship. To further escalate the tension, the order of authors connotes relative contribution and is used by many promotion and tenure committees to determine significant scientific contribution, typically for the first, second, or last authors only. These conditions provide incentives for misconduct.

The rules

Preventing and resolving authorship disputes

Authorship should be clearly spelled out at the planning phase of the study and documented in the study protocols to avoid difficult disputes. This is particularly important for the first author and last authors. The principal investigator of a study should take the lead in this effort. Disputes are harder to resolve at the time of manuscript submission or review. These are best handled locally by the authors and principal investigators. In the event that an issue cannot be resolved, authors

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest may involve many individuals in the publication process including authors, reviewers, or editors. Conflicts may be financial, legal, scientific, or personal, including academic competition. If in doubt, authors should add the information to their disclosure. The Editor-in-Chief is ultimately responsible for deciding whether something is a conflict of interest. A summary of principles for conflict of interest management was published by Baillie et al6 in 2006.

Summary

Publication of scientific manuscripts remains our core method of sharing knowledge and advanced scientific inquiry. Pressures to publish for reasons other than pure discovery have the potential to corrupt this process. The core principles of scientific ethics outlined above provide guidance on how to maintain the integrity of our scientific process. We, as journal editors, are committed to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the ethical process of publication. We do the best we can to

Disclosures

Dr Wallace is a consultant for Ilumen and has received support for travel from Olympus and research grants from Boston Scientific and Ninepoint. Dr Siersema disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Deborah Bowman, MFA, ELS, Terrie Duhadway, and Hilary Hamilton-Gibbs for editorial review and assistance with figures and CrossCheck reports.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (6)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

View full text