Transcript How to build a culture of Research Integrity

Trusted. Timely. Today’s Medicine.
Responsible conduct and publication of
research
The role of editors
Chongqing,
The 7th China Science Journal
Development Forum
Oct, 2011
Sabine Kleinert
Senior Executive Editor, The Lancet
Vice-Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics
Research environment
more complex than ever:
- Pressure to publish
- Funding
- Career
- Conflict of Interest
- Many guidelines/rules
- Collaborations
- Competition (between
individuals, disciplines,
institutions, countries)
- ……
From: ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research,
Nicholas H Steneck. Revised edition 2004.
Science is changing
•
•
“Team science”
 Cross-disciplinary research
 Complex research
 Multi-institution and/or multi-national
Pressure to publish
 Authorship credit = professional
advancement, personal gain
Editors’ role
•
Unique and powerful position:
Publication = currency of career progression for scientists
•
Good editor = trust in journal
Strong editorial leadership
Editorial integrity
Transparent and fair processes
•
Trusted journal = high-quality submissions
Increased influence (citations, readers, policy)
Editors’ collective role as guardians
of the research record
Editors’ responsibility
• fair and unbiased decisions independent of commercial
consideration
• fair and appropriate peer review process
• policies: encourage maximum transparency, complete
and honest reporting
• corrections when needed, pursuing suspected
misconduct and publication misconduct
• pursuing alleged reviewer and editorial misconduct
• policies for editorial conflicts of interest and if editors
wish to submit to their own journal
Common agreed Principles and Approach
International Guidelines/Best Practices and Policies
•
•
For authors
For editors
Developed at 2nd World Conference on
Research Integrity, Singapore, July 2010
By editors from different countries and
disciplines
International standards for
authors and editors
In:
PROMOTING RESEARCH
INTEGRITY IN A GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT
edited by Tony Mayer (Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore) &
Nicholas Steneck (University of Michigan,
USA)
?Nov 2011
Editors’ responsibility
• fair and unbiased decisions independent of commercial
consideration
• fair and appropriate peer review process
• policies: encourage maximum transparency, complete
and honest reporting
• corrections when needed, pursuing suspected
misconduct and publication misconduct
• pursuing alleged reviewer and editorial misconduct
• policies for editorial conflicts of interest and if editors
wish to submit to their own journal
Pursuing alleged misconduct
•
•
•
•
Not just rejection
Due process: contact authors and institutions
Ask for an institutional investigation
Act on findings (correction, expression of concern,
retraction)
• Banning authors is problematic
Editorial and reviewer misconduct
Sir Cyril Burt (1883-1971)
an extreme case ofeditorial misconduct
• Founded the British Journal of Statistical
Psychology and was its editor
• Published 63 of his own articles
• Often altered the work of others without
permission, sometimes adding favourable
references to his own work
• Once he published a letter he wrote himself
under a pseudonym and a response he also
wrote himself under another pseudonym in
order to attack a colleague
Editors influencing content for the
wrong reasons
“The editor in chief of a journal started insisting that
authors include references from the journal in their
articles. S/he provided examples of acceptance letters
from several other journals in the field, which insist that
their authors do this, as evidence that it is standard and
acceptable practice. The authors do not agree and think
this is an unethical attempt to massage the impact
factor. But they are struggling to convince the editor-inchief.”
Biased decision-making
“An associate editor received a letter claiming harassment
by the editor. The author submitted a manuscript which
was repeatedly sent back for changes in format but not
rejected. He informed the editor and the associate editor
of the irregularity and that he suspects foul play. The
associate editor informed the editor that there was
indeed a conflict of interest as another similar
manuscript from another author close to the editor was
under review process but he was asked, verbally, to
stay away from the matter.”
Reviewer misconduct
• delay of reviewing (unfair advantage for own work)
• Plagiarism (sometimes plagiarised work published
first)
• Plagiarism of ideas (very difficult to prove)
• Undeclared conflict of interest (financial or nonfinancial)
• Unfair or biased review (competition, personal
quarrels
• Breach of confidentiality
Preventing reviewer misconduct
• set clear timeline
• Make it clear that conflicts of interest should be
declared before reviewing (serious CoIs mean
editors should seek alternative reviewer)
• Give clear instructions on what is expected form
reviewers, including emphasis on confidentiality
Dealing with reviewer misconduct
Difficult!!
Often difficult to prove
Institution usually not interested in pursuing
Ultimately, only action: not to use reviewer any longer
Editors’ Conflicts of Interest
• Declare regularly, ?publicly
• No part in decision-making if CoI (colleague,
relative, competitor....ect.)
• Declare in print if relevant to piece of writing
Should editors submit to their own
journal?
• ?research (ideally not but maybe unavoidable....)
• If so, handled with same principles of decisionmaking by different person (ex-EiC, Associate
Editors, Editorial Board.....)
• Declared processes upfront
Trust, reputation, influence
Thank you
for your attention!