The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a

2021-03-27T09:45:04Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:85c71a25-b26a-4631-9620-05a9a84e3fd3
|Title=Self-plagiarism
|Is About=Self-plagiarism is the practice of reusing significant parts of one’s own publication in another publication. Self-plagiarism is also known as duplicate (or multiple) publishing. Keep in mind that self-plagiarism is different from duplicate submission. <ref>Thurman RH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Halwani S, Farine D. Self-plagiarism: a misnomer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(1):91-3.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Self-plagiarism is an issue because it means already published data is presented as new, which can distort meta-analyses and impact review articles. Not only that, duplicate publishing can have serious effects on algorithms and guidelines in healthcare. Self-plagiarism gives false results in citation index tools. It’s unfair and at its core, it’s basically double dipping - for one piece of work you get multiple publications. Another problem is the copyright issue. When you publish your work, you usually sign a contract with the journal, by which you transfer copyright rights to the publisher. That way, when you copy your own work, you are stealing not only from yourself, but from the publisher as well, and actually breaking the law.
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal editors; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=Different fields take different stances in regard to self-plagiarism. For example, legal research has a lot more tolerance for reuse of one's work than biomedical science. In 1969, the scientific journal the “New England Journal of Medicine” announced they would no longer publish already published work. This is called Ingelfinger rule and became a norm for high quality scientific journals. <ref>Altman LK. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review--Part 1. Lancet. 1996;347(9012):1382-6.</ref>Because of the rise of preprint servers (such as arXiv), journals now tend to loosen that policy. Secondary publications are a different issue, as they clearly state that work has been previously published. They are produced with a goal of reaching a bigger (and sometimes different) audience, often through translations to different languages.

Keep in mind that a lot of scientific journals use computer software to check if your text is similar to anything already published. The majority of software works through screening available online databases for similarities. <ref>Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR. Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:95c69cce-596a-42b5-9d86-e0aabaf00a85;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research misconduct
}}

Theme:6b584d4e-2c9d-4e27-b370-5fbdb983ab46

2021-03-27T09:39:34Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=P-value hacking
|Is About=P-value hacking, also known as data dredging, data fishing, data snooping or data butchery, is an exploitation of data analysis in order to discover patterns which would be presented as statistically significant, when in reality, there is no underlying effect.<ref>Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(3).</ref><ref>Norman G. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 Mar;19(1):1-5. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8.</ref> In other words, p-hacking is running statistical tests on a set of data until some statistically significant results arise. That can be done in a few different ways, for example: by stopping the collection of data once you get a P<0.05, analyzing many outcomes, but only reporting those with P<0.05, using covariates, excluding participants, etc.
<references />
|Important Because=Unfortunately, current practices in science show that journals that are considered of high quality (those with high impact factors) predominately publish statistically significant results. Researchers want to publish in such journals because it's important for their academic prestige and job.<ref>Ekmekci PE. An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors' role in avoiding it. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(2):171-8.</ref> This creates pressure on researchers, and can lead to P-value hacking. P-value hacking leads to false positive results, which can get published, and have a negative impact on future research in the field, secondary research and systematic reviews and human knowledge in general.<ref>Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):0003081.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=It’s difficult to address the issue of P-value hacking, especially since there aren’t many incentives to replicate research. However, some steps can be taken in order to prevent it. Cross-validation, or out-of-sample testing is a statistical method used to create two sets of data. The first set of data is then used for statistical analysis, to develop new models or hypotheses, and the other, independent set is then used to verify them.<ref>Berk R, Brown L, Zhao L. Statistical Inference After Model Selection. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2010;26(2):217-36.</ref> A number of statistical analyses is also available to check for p-value hacking, such as Bonferonni correction, Scheffé's method and false discovery rate. A lot of journals will now ask for raw data to be published, or shift their way of work to registered report format. That is a publication process in which journals accept the publications based on theoretical justification and methodology only, without looking at results. <ref>Simons DJ, Holcombe AO, Spellman BA. An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014;9(5):552-5.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e
|Related To Theme=Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice
}}

Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637

2021-03-27T09:33:05Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=Non-reporting of negative findings
|Is About=Non-reporting of negative findings is a phenomenon that happens in science, when there is a bigger chance of publishing when you have a positive research result (a statistically significant finding of effect). <ref>Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:92-101.</ref> One of the consequences of this phenomenon is publication bias. <ref>Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):1-193.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research in biomedical sciences reveals that positive results have a higher chance of being published. Because of that, negative results (for example, the lack of effect of some therapy) might be unavailable to the scientific community. Consequently, when other researchers conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis, the results are distorted in favor of the positive finding. Clinical trials with negative results, and those with reported serious side effects, often don’t get published, which is dangerous, unfair to participants, and a waste of resources. <ref>Brassington I. The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials. British Medical Bulletin. 2017;121(1):19-29.</ref> Getting negative results in a costly project and after a lot of hard work can be very demotivating, disappointing and can negatively impact young researchers’ careers. Some supervisors may not be happy to publish negative results, and in that way add to the climate of positive-publications-only.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=If a study’s methodology is valid, it is important to publish all of the results, including negative ones. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that researchers should publish negative data in order to prevent publication bias and potential waste of time and money because of duplication. World Health Organization, in 2005, called for publication of previous non-reported negative findings. The Committee on Publication Ethics, in their guidelines, state that journals should not refuse to publish negative findings. Some journals are dedicated to publication of null results only, such as the Journal of Negative Results, in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology. BioMed Central’s Journal of Negative results in BioMedicine ceased to publish in 2017.

In order to assess publication bias when conducting a meta-analysis, researchers use a funnel plot. A funnel-plot is a type of scatter-plot, in which both treatment effect and study precision are shown. If the data is not symmetrical, there is a high chance of either publication bias or small-study effect. <ref>Weintraub PG. The Importance of Publishing Negative Results: J Insect Sci. 2016 Oct 23;16(1):109. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew092. eCollection 2016.</ref> This is especially important when doing a meta-analysis of clinical trials, as such results often end up being used as the strongest evidence in making of clinical practice guidelines.<ref>Kicinski M. How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004831.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice; Publication ethics
}}

Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8

2021-03-26T15:54:41Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:85c71a25-b26a-4631-9620-05a9a84e3fd3
|Title=Inappropriate authorship
|Is About=There are many forms of inappropriate authorship, and some of them happen when people are listed as authors even if they did not contribute significantly (guest or gift authors), or when people who did do the work do not get the credit (ghost authors).
|Important Because=Getting authorship credit in academia is important because it’s one of the main ways how other researchers and institutions evaluate your work. Among other criteria, institutions seek employees based on the number of articles published, and authorship is a criterion for getting promotion or tenure. In the end, authors are researchers who guarantee for the data in the article, and can be held responsible for their work. In medical sciences, practice of ghost-writing can happen during the clinical trials, where experts from drug companies (writers or statisticians) contribute to the research or manuscript writing, but are not listed as authors because of their conflict of interest. Sometimes, senior researchers, supervisors and laboratory leaders, who do not fulfil the authorship criteria end up listed as authors. That is called guest or gift authorship and is usually done to increase the chance of manuscript publication.
|Important For=PhD Students; Principal investigators; Researchers; industry stakeholders
|Has Best Practice=A lot has been said about authorship. One of the milestones in tackling authorship are the famous four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. That means that those who fulfil the ICMJE criteria should be listed as authors (to avoid not giving credit when credit is due and to avoid ghost-writers), and authors should fulfil all of those criteria (to avoid guest and honorary authorship). Researchers who fulfil some, but not all four criteria should be acknowledged in the manuscript.

When submitting research manuscript, journals will often ask for the statement of authorship, signed by authors. That way, journals’ editors want to make sure all authors have been informed, and they can be held accountable if any problem arises.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:E996d601-bd6e-4f62-831c-c09f82652eb1
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Authorship and Contribution
}}

Theme:A6b06cb6-13ec-4d48-9f1e-efc84449f501

2021-03-26T15:41:22Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
|Title=Conflict of interest in peer review
|Is About=When reviewers’ own interests, such as personal or work relationships, could influence the way they criticize an article and advise a journal editor, that situation is equivalent to an existing conflict of interest (COI).<ref>Gallo SA, Lemaster M, Glisson SR. Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(1):189-97.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Peer review process is vital to science, as it provides quality assurance before publication of new knowledge. Any situation which can compromise peer review process by influencing decision making should hence be reported, and prevented.<ref>Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review: Toxicol Pathol. 2018 Feb;46(2):112-114. doi: 10.1177/0192623318754792. Epub 2018 Jan 30.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Supervisors; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=In its guidelines for editors, Elsevier states a number of possible situations which are considered to be a conflict of interest. Some of these are: co-authoring or working in the same department with some of the authors in the last three years, being a supervisor or supervisee of the author, having a personal relationship with the author, and having a direct financial interest or other professional benefit from the review. Another example is when you are asked to review a research submitted from a competing research team (Elsevier guidelines for conflict of interest in peer review provided in the tools section). Your own research experience and ambition may influence the way you see other teams’ work.

To handle this issue, not much can be done. If we would prevent everyone with potential conflict of interest to do a peer review, the quality of peer review would drop. Many researchers with knowledge and expertise can have a personal or professional connection with the authors, especially in a small and niche research area. Another option is blinding the reviewers, so that they do not know the names of the authors. Research has shown that reviewers often recognize the authors even when blinded, and blinding doesn’t mask the products or medicines used in research.<ref>Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health. 1991;81(7):843-5.</ref> However, any researcher asked to do a review should decline to do so if they have a COI. Clearly defined journal policies on this matter should also be put in place.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:707fea28-db9c-4bc1-b1f4-b346f62f8572;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest
}}

Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7

2021-03-26T15:40:54Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Predatory publishing
|Is About=Predatory publishing, also called deceptive publishing, is a kind of academic publishing more geared toward making money than generating high quality publications.

Predatory journals have proliferated since the early 2000s. They typically apply a pay to publish model, work with an open access platform, and economize on editorial and peer review services .<ref>The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)</ref> As a result, they tend to promise a very swift review process and fast publication. One way to check for predatory publishing is checking whether the publisher is a member of a recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE).
<references />
|Important Because=The pay to publish model has introduced a perverse conflict of interest into academic publishing. Rejecting papers does not yield any income and conflicts with the publisher’s financial interest. Because predatory journals do not usually apply rigorous peer review, the average quality of the published research is lower than that of adequately peer reviewed papers.

Avoiding, bypassing, or diminishing the quality assurance step of peer review can result in poor knowledge production. This results in bad research being freely accessible to the public, which is harmful to those who read it, corrupts the record of published scientific results, undermines evidence-based practice, misguides decision and policy makers, and risks erosion of public trust in academic science.

A number of studies have exposed predatory journal practices. For example, a writer for the journal Science submitted a very flawed manuscript to a number of open-access journals and experienced that 57% of the journals accepted the paper. He then published his results in a paper called, "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". <ref>Bohannon J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013;342 (6154): 60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60</ref> A fictitious scientist named Anna O. Szust applied for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals without relevant qualifications and with a made-up CV. 40 of 120 predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background check and often very quickly. <ref>Sorokowski P. "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature 2017; 543 (7646): 481–483.</ref>

Researchers, particularly those with less experience, are sometimes unaware of the predatory nature of a journal and can be tricked into submitting a manuscript. Publishing in a predatory journal means that the article is no longer original and cannot be published in a high quality, peer-reviewed journal. Another problem is, when a researcher learns of the predatory nature of the journal and requests a retraction, the journal will often either refuse to retract the article, or request another fee to take it down. To avoid reputational damage and wasting a good article in a worthless publication, it is important to be able to recognize and avoid predatory journals.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Scientists; Junior researchers; Postdocs; Publishers; Editors; Senior researchers; Bachelor students; Master students
|Has Best Practice=Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) as well as lists of high quality open access publishers (whitelists) are of great value to researchers and decision makers.

===Blacklists===
The University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall developed a list of potential predatory journals in 2008, which has been since taken offline because of certain flaws in the methodology.

*[https://beallslist.weebly.com/ Beall's list]
*[https://www2.cabells.com/blacklist Cabells' lists]
*[https://predatoryjournals.com/ Stop Predatory Journals]

===Whitelists===

*[https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)]

===Choosing a journal===
Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson have identified 25 signs of predatory publishing, <ref>Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (7 October 2016). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

Bert Gordijn, Bjørn Hofmann, Marin Viđak contribut</ref> and argue that more points on the list that apply to the journal at hand, the more skeptical you should be."

#The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)
#The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)
#The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started
#The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues
#The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)
#There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers
#The journal website is not professional
#The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations
#The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address
#The publishing schedule is not clearly stated
#The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as "American Journal of ..." while being located on another continent) or includes "International" in its title while having a single-country editorial board
#The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal
#The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)
#The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)
#The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
#The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time
#The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus
#The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope
#The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise
#Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as "You have to respond within 48 h" while later on saying "You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient")
#The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)
#The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website
#The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record
#The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal
#The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation

A number of other initiatives have also put together criteria for journal selection:

*[https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Guideline to choose the right journal for research] -
*[https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed Be iNFORMEd: Checklist] - A checklist to assess the quality of a journal or publisher

==Other information==
[http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) statement on predatory publishing]

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Joint Position Statement on Predatory Publishing]

[http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/fake_predatory_pseudo_journals_dec17.html ICMJE document on predatory publishing]<br />
<references />
|Has Detail=#Kearney, Margaret H. Predatory Publishing: What Authors Need to Know. Research in Nursing & Health 2015; 38 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1002/nur.21640. <nowiki>PMID 25545343</nowiki>.
#Bohannon J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013;342 (6154): 60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
#Sorokowski P. "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature 2017; 543 (7646): 481–483.
#Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (7 October 2016). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d
|Related To Theme=Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897;Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Conflict of interest; Perverse incentives
}}

Theme:7d205500-e939-49cf-9a5c-06489919c52a

2021-03-26T15:29:30Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878
|Title=Journal Impact Factor
|Is About=A journal’s ‘Impact Factor’ (IF) gives an indication of journal influence. The IF is a measure of the number of citations divided by the number of published articles in a journal.<ref>Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama. 2006;295(1):90-3.</ref> It is calculated for an entire year, taking into account number of citations of the articles published in the last two years, and divided with a number of publications in last two years. For example, the 2018 IF of a journal reflects the number of times the articles published in the journal in 2016 and 2017 were cited, divided by the number of articles actually published in the journal in 2016 and 2017.
<references />
|Important Because=Impact factors are important because they provide a measure of quality of a scientific journal.<ref>Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama. 2006;295(1):90-3.</ref> The idea is that journals with higher IFs are read more frequently, have more of an impact within a field, and are of higher quality. They are also important because some academic institutions ask for publications in journals with high IFs for acquiring a PhD or advancement.<ref>Casadevall A, Fang FC. Impacted science: impact is not importance: MBio. 2015 Oct 13;6(5):e01593-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01593-15. eCollection 2015 Sep-Oct.</ref> Journal IFs are calculated each year by Thomson Scientific and published by Journal Citation Reports.

Impact factors, however, can be manipulated. Examples of practices that influence IF are self and cartel citations, limitations of citable items, acceptance of more review articles.<ref>Sharma M, Sarin A, Gupta P, Sachdeva S, Desai AV. Journal impact factor: its use, significance and limitations. World J Nucl Med. 2014;13(2):1450-147.</ref> Self-citation is a practice of citing one’s own work, to artificially increase a number of citations. Citation cartel is a practice of mutual citing between journals to increase their IF.<ref>Fister I, Perc M. Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks. Frontiers in Physics. 2016;4(49).</ref> Editors can also insist that newly submitted manuscripts cite some of the works already published in that journals. Journals can limit a number of citable items, and not include them in the IF analysis. For example, letter to editor is a type of publication that is often referenced, and journals get the citation. But if it’s not included in the citable items, it could increase the IF. Journals can also choose to accept more review articles, which are often cited more, and can increase their IF that way.

It’s also important to note that it takes at least three years to calculate IF of the journal, and IF cannot be calculated for new journals. Because of all this, IF should be used cautiously when determining the quality of a journal, and other bibliometric data should be considered before making the final decision.<ref>Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Small H, Sorensen AA, Klavans R. Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best? Nature. 2014;514(7524):561-2.</ref><ref>Time to remodel the journal impact factor: Nature. 2016 Jul 28;535(7613):466. doi: 10.1038/535466a.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Scientists; Researchers; PhD students
|Has Best Practice=Advance data mining techniques can help identify impact factor manipulation. See [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2144-6 this article].
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:8be5a9b1-1c66-4659-b175-ca1e8df61047
|Related To Theme=Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4;Theme:74cc5c52-3073-4fef-8307-34a76326d665;Theme:590b79a4-ab28-44a4-b090-7be5e20a72ad
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Citing
}}

Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4

2021-03-26T15:28:48Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878
|Title=Altmetrics
|Is About=Altmetrics are an alternative, online based approach to research metrics, as opposed to traditional ones, such as h-index or impact factor.<ref>Chavda J, Patel A. Measuring research impact: bibliometrics, social media, altmetrics, and the BJGP. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(642).</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Ever since its invention, the Internet has become an omnipresent part of everyday communication. It has become common in science to share your articles via Twitter, LinkedIn or Facebook. Measuring that part of online impact is important as it offers different insights into popularity and use of published articles.
|Important For=PhD students; Scientists; All stakeholders in research; Supervisors; Postdocs; Research performing organisations; Research funding organisations; Journals; Editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=There are different online companies offering altmetrics services. Some of them are Altmetric, Impactstory, and Plum Analytics.<ref>Piwowar H. Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature. 2013;493(7431).</ref> They can track HTML views and PDF downloads, shared articles on social media platforms, saved and cited items. Altmetrics scores are often indicators of how popular an article is online with the general public. Unlike typical research metrics, Altmetrics software enables the user to track the dissemination of publications in real time. Some publishers have started offering their readers this information (BioMed Central, PLOS, Nature, Elsevier). Some argue that this form of metric is not a good indicator of popularity or quality, as social media activity and time of publication can have a big influence on the metric. <ref>Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4).</ref> There seems to be no correlation between citations and altmetrics.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8be5a9b1-1c66-4659-b175-ca1e8df61047
|Related To Theme=Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878;Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities; Funders’ responsibilities; Publication ethics; Grant applications; Science policy; Perverse incentives; Altmetrics
}}

Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878

2021-03-26T15:27:34Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Research metrics
|Is About=Research metrics, or Bibliometrics, refers to the statistical analysis of published articles and journals and their citations. Analysis of research metrics can be at a journal level, article level or author level.<ref>Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108-11.</ref><ref>Yeung AWK, Heinrich M, Atanasov AG. Ethnopharmacology-A Bibliometric Analysis of a Field of Research Meandering Between Medicine and Food Science? Front Pharmacol. 2018;9(215).</ref> Altmetrics is an alternative approach to research metrics. It adopts an online approach, utilising social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
<references />
|Important Because=Research metrics are used to evaluate the popularity, impact and importance of individual scientists, articles and journals, as well as the performance of employees and projects. The logic behind such an approach is that cited items are perceived to have a bigger impact on science and are, therefore, of greater value. Consequently, research metrics can be employed as a basis of staff promotion and funding distribution. Bibliometrics are also used in research, when analyzing relationships between researchers, and when assessing the impact of research projects and grants.
|Important For=phd students; Scientists; Researchers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=On an individual level, the most important research metrics are the H-index and the i-10 index. The H-index, also known as Hirsch index, is an author level metric that shows how many articles have been cited a certain number of times. For example, a h-index of 10 shows that the author has 10 articles, each cited at least 10 times.<ref>Diaz I, Cortey M, Olvera A, Segales J. Use of H-Index and Other Bibliometric Indicators to Evaluate Research Productivity Outcome on Swine Diseases. PLoS One. 2016;11(3).</ref> The i-10 index shows the number of articles an author has published with at least 10 citations.

On a journal level, the impact factor shows an average number of citations per article in two consecutive years.<ref>McVeigh ME, Mann SJ. The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. Jama. 2009;302(10):1107-9.</ref> Other famous journal metric systems are Eigenfactor and the SCImago Journal Rankings.

It is important to note that every metric system has its flaws. As a result, they should not be the only criterion when determining the quality and performance of a particular researcher, article, journal or research project.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331
|Related To Theme=Theme:7d205500-e939-49cf-9a5c-06489919c52a;Theme:74cc5c52-3073-4fef-8307-34a76326d665;Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Fairness; Reliability; Honesty; Precision; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Altmetrics
}}

Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8

2021-03-26T15:24:03Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
|Title=Peer review
|Is About=This article is about scholarly (academic) peer review. In simple terms, peer review is an evaluation of a piece of work by persons from the same or a similar field of work (peers). This process is very important in science, and it is conducted to help journal editors decide what to publish. The purpose of peer review is to detect both the quality and the flaws of the presented piece of work in order to prevent poor research from publication. <ref>Wierzbinski-Cross H. Peer Review. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2017;33(2):102-4.</ref><ref>D'Andrea R, O'Dwyer JP. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PloS one. 2017;12(10):e0186111. Epub 2017/10/11.</ref> It includes checking for methodological rigor, quality of reporting, and critical assessment of conclusions. <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research. <ref>Smith JA, Jr. The Importance of Peer Review: J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1374-1376. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.115. Epub 2017 Mar 22.</ref> For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts.
<references />
|Important For=Scientists; Journal editors; Students; Peer reviewers; Reviewers; Researchers; Editors; Journals; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=Different publishers have a different set of rules for reporting research and conducting peer review so it is always recommended to familiarize yourself with any specific guidelines which are available on each journal’s webpage. Before you can accept an invitation to review, it is necessary to consider does your area of expertise match the topic of the proposed article as well as your potential conflict of interest. A successful peer review usually contains a clear answer on the question should the proposed article be accepted, rejected, or revised. It also contains a list of any major and/or minor issues, their location within the article as well as explanations and suggestions to the author(s). There are some freely available resources which can help with peer review process such as COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers <ref>COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. www. publicationethics.org doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9</nowiki>.</ref>, Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist <ref>Hames I. Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61</nowiki>.</ref> and the Handbook on Best Practices for Peer Review <ref>Association of American University Presses. AAUP Handbook - Best Practices for Peer Review. 2016. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AAUP-Best-Practices-for-Peer-Review-.pdf</nowiki>.</ref>, published by the Association of American University Presses.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:D37d8de4-899e-458c-aa5d-c0246286dd0f
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review
}}

Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540

2021-03-25T16:22:41Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
|Is About=This page is about participation of vulnerable groups and non-competent subjects in clinical trials. Vulnerable groups include those who could easily be influenced to participate in research, out of fear or pressure. Examples of such groups include soldiers, immigrants and prisoners.<ref>Hughes J, Hunter D, Sheehan M, Wilkinson S, Wrigley A. European textbook on ethics in research. : Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.</ref> Non-competent subjects are those who do not have the legal autonomy to make decisions for themselves, such as children and people suffering from severe mental illness or dementia.
<references />
|Important Because=Throughout history, scientific experiments have been conducted on human beings without their consent, especially during the World War II. As a result, specific ethical guidelines for human experimentation were developed. One of the ethical milestones in clinical research is informed consent, a process in which researchers ask for a permission before enrolling participants in a trial.<ref>Nuremberg Code (1949). The Nuremberg Code. ''Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law''</ref>The decision to participate has to be freely given, without pressure or conflicting interests, and based on appropriate information. Prisoners, soldiers, migrants, and other vulnerable groups are often unable to give consent in a way that satisfies the appropriate voluntary conditions. Children and patients with severe psychiatric conditions or dementia do not have the required legal capacity for granting consent.
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Ethics committee members; health care professionals; Researchers
|Has Best Practice=Since World War II, a lot has been said about human experimentation, and vulnerable groups in particular. Many different reports and guidelines have been developed and should be consulted when thinking about involving vulnerable and non-competent individuals. Start with the Declaration of Helsinki and don’t forget to check the appropriate regulations of your own country and institution.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Balancing harms and benefits
}}

Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd

2021-03-25T15:53:20Z

Marin Vidak:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Research Integrity Committees
|Is About=Research integrity (RI) committees contribute to the responsible research conduct as the basis of research behavior, and play a role in dealing with cases of research misconduct and fostering research integrity among different research institutions.<ref>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research integrity committees usually serve as a base of knowledge for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct. The importance of the RI committee lies in its responsibility in promoting research integrity, i.e. providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to the responsible conduct of research. This is usually done by guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. Moreover, RI committees are responsible for dealing with cases of research misconduct and they should be notified if an alleged case of research misconduct has occurred. By performing these actions, RI committees contribute to better science and the prevention of research misconduct.
|Important For=phd students; Researchers; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; funders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The organizational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary. In some countries, RI committees (or commissions) are established at the national level, hence their responsibility is to handle cases of research misconduct, or serve as an advisory body, for all research institutions within state borders (e.g. National Commission for Research Integrity-Luxembourg, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM), Commission for Research Integrity-Austria, French Office for Scientific Integrity, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity). For example, the Danish law on research misconduct stipulates the responsibility of the DCRM to handle the cases of research misconduct, while each institution has a responsibility to process cases of questionable research practices.

Some RI committees are established as a part of research integrity organisations, providing training and other educational activities for researchers (e.g. the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity).

In some countries, dealing with cases of research misconduct is the responsibility of research institutions and institution-based committees as there is no national body to handle investigations and process cases of misconduct. An example of the latter is Sweden, where each research institution is responsible for conducting an investigation of research misconduct and to impose a sanction.

All these RI bodies, both at the national and institutional level, are doing important work in the field of research integrity promotion and guiding researchers with the principles of good scientific practices. There are numerous documents, issued by RI bodies and committees in the form of guidelines and checklist, as well as documents describing committees’ procedures when dealing with misconduct allegations. Some European examples are: Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, FNR Research Integrity Guidelines, Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct (by the Irish National Forum), Roadmap for Scientific Integrity 2020 (OFIS), Integrity and responsibility in research practices (CNRS-CPU), Scientific integrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Good stewardship
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

User:Marin Vidak

2021-03-25T15:52:12Z

Marin Vidak: create user page