Difference between revisions of "Resource:E11c2017-febf-4986-a02a-4d6d9599d21a"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility | |Title=Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility | ||
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This case described how the limited space in journals is not aligned with the increase in submissions. Due to publication pressure authors sometimes cut corners, which can lead to cases of misconduct.<ref>Brice, Julie, and John Bligh. "Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility." ''Medical education'' 39.1 (2005): 83-89.</ref> |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because=This paper aims to explore | + | |Important Because=This paper aims to explore common types of publication misconduct in the editorial office in a specific journal, and considers several implications |
|Important For=Researchers; PhD students | |Important For=Researchers; PhD students | ||
|Has Best Practice=The cases reveal practices to avoid: | |Has Best Practice=The cases reveal practices to avoid: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br /> | ||
*Plagiarism | *Plagiarism | ||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
Other experienced misconduct to avoid were: | Other experienced misconduct to avoid were: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br /> | ||
*"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;" | *"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;" | ||
Latest revision as of 14:59, 26 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility
What is this about?
This case described how the limited space in journals is not aligned with the increase in submissions. Due to publication pressure authors sometimes cut corners, which can lead to cases of misconduct.[1]
- ↑ Brice, Julie, and John Bligh. "Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility." Medical education 39.1 (2005): 83-89.
Why is this important?
This paper aims to explore common types of publication misconduct in the editorial office in a specific journal, and considers several implications
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
The cases reveal practices to avoid:
- Plagiarism
- Undeserved authorship
- Duplicate submission
- Unprofessional conduct
- Lack of ethical approval
- Redundant or duplicate publication
Other experienced misconduct to avoid were:
- "‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"
- "cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"[1]
- "publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"
- "publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"
- "attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." [2]
