Ethics in publishing science
ModulesEthics in publishing science
After completing this session, you will be able to:
- Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.
- Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.
- Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.
- Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.
- Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.
- Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.
- Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.
Scientific Publishing
Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.
A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.
Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.
However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.Authorship
Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.
In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.
What constitutes authorship?
Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.
For example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.
The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.
A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on What constitutes authorship.
Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios
Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:
- I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author
- My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?
- In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?
- There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?
- The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?
Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines here.
Handling authorship disputes
Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.
[1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3
[2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
[3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/
[4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdfInfographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts
Discover the key to harmonious collaboration! Dive into this infographic on best authorship practices to prevent conflicts and foster successful partnerships.
Peer-Review
Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.
What do we mean by ‘peer review’?
In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:
“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area” (from Cambridge Dictionary, web edition)
The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.
A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Models of peer review
Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:
- Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).
- Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).
- Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.
- Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named.
Learn about the other types of peer review in the COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews?
Fundamentals of peer review
Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? Elsevier's Researcher Academy prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with.
[1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4
[2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review
[3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.
COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication.
These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
[1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4Click on Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to open the resource.
Click on Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to open the resource.Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
This scenario on 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity' presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.
It focuses on issues regarding:
- The integrity of peer review processes;
- Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;
- Plagiarism.
Your task is to:
- Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues
- Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)
- Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)
Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.
Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.
What is it? Defining conflict of interest
Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:
“A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.”
The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.
Conflicts of interest can be:
- financial or
- non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships).
More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.
Dealing with Conflicts of Interest
According to the US Office of Research Integrity, “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”
Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.
Further resources:
Elsevier. (2019). Factsheet: Competing Interests.
[1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4
[2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research & Publication.
[3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/
[4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35
[4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320Metrics
Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.
Citation metrics
- They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when best to use them.
- They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.
- They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received.
- The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.
- Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period. The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.
Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.
Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.
Responsible Metrics
There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations. In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. The Bibliomagician has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.
[1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/Explore: The COPE website
Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.
Ready to do a task on your own?
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.
Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
Click on Explore: The COPE website to open the resource.Copyright and Licensing
There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.
Licensing of your material
Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.
All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.
Copyright
Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material.
Copyright is divided into two parts:
- The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised.
- The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.
For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.
Academic articles
The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in SHERPA/RoMEO. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.
Books and book chapters
When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.
Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.
If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.
For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the Open Access Books Toolkit.
Images and copyright
Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.
Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”
Further reading:
[1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/Open Access Licensing
Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.
Open Access Licensing
If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the Creative Commons licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently six types of Creative Commons licenses available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused.
What is a Creative Commons licence?
Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.
Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).
What licence should be applied to the research data?
It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.
- If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.
- If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.
Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.
Further reading:
[1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data
[2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/Predatory journals and publishers
Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers.
What are predatory journals?
Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.
Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.
Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.
Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals
There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:
- Searching the databases listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, Cabells provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.
- There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.
- The Think-Check-Submit initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The Journal Comparison Service by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.
- Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.
- In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.
Further reading:
There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing, where you can obtain additional information.
For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide (Eaton, 2018).
[1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING
[2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-yThink. Check. Submit.
Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.
The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.
Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher
Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.
Think. Check. Submit. checklist
The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.
Follow the Book & Chapters or Journals checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.
[1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/Paper-Mills problem
With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a "paper mill" refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.
What is a paper mill?
The Committee on Publication Ethics defines paper mills as "the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale."
These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.
Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.
Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs)
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research.
This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Reading for fun:
Paper Mills Research report from COPE & STM
Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x
[1] COPE & STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE & STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHLEthics in publishing and research
Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.
In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.
This presentation is in English.
It is a bit on the long side, though. :)
Click on the video to open the resource.Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
This scenario on 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity' presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.
It focuses on issues regarding:
- Dual submissions
- Authorship lists
- Plagiarism
- Complaints procedures
- Editorial decisions
- Retraction
Your task is to:
- Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues
- Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)
- Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)
[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216
Quiz
Practice the quice activity below.
Remarks
We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.
The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE
