Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

A special issue of Publications (ISSN 2304-6775).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (20 June 2022) | Viewed by 41720

Special Issue Editor

Research Services, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
Interests: research ethics; research integrity; research culture; applied ethics; publication ethics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Traditionally, academic publishing has been the established means of disseminating academic research and scholarship.  In addition, it fulfils an essential role in validating academic careers.  Despite advances in digital communications technologies providing the means for academics potentially to engage directly with global scholarly communication, academic publishers have remained central to the production of scientific knowledge.  Indeed, the professionalisation of academia that took place in the early twentieth century has led to publishing becoming a key driver of career progression.  Academic recognition and reward are contingent on publication in the traditional forms of academic publishing [1]. 

However, questions have been raised about the effectiveness and legitimacy of this system.  Peer review, an essential part of assessing the quality of academic outputs, has been shown to be an unreliable judge of excellence.  Statistics show that the majority of initially rejected manuscripts will ultimately be published, most of them in a journal of similar status, and some with little or no revision [2].

In addition, there is evidence that the perceived pressure to publish experienced by academics could lead them to be tempted to cut corners, or to manipulate the publication process to maximise their publications.  Questionable research practices (QRPs) such as ‘rushing to print’, ‘salami-slicing’ research into multiple publications, and failure to disclose negative results all have a detrimental effect on research integrity [3–5].  These kinds of QRPs are thought to be becoming more common [6], and could be more damaging to the research enterprise than high profile cases of research fraud [7].  However, QRPs can serve to make research results ‘more exciting, more positive and more statistically significant’ which make them more likely to be accepted for publication in a high impact journal, thus advancing the career of the academic [8] (p2).  Current methods of researcher assessment employed by universities and research institutions, combined with publication practices that prioritise these kinds of results, create perverse incentives that are damaging to the research record [9].

As observed by Ekmekci [10], ‘published literature is both the academic end product and the starting point of scientific research’ and is crucial for ensuring evidence-based policy and practice (p171).  However, despite the proliferation of associated ethical guidance documents and codes, identifying the exact practices that will lead to ethical publication can be complex [11].

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)[1] provides practical resources to assist editors and publishers to achieve best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing, but challenges remain.  Research culture, and the role of academic publishing within it, has come under scrutiny in recent years, becoming the subject of an inquiry by the UK Government Science and Technology Committee[2], and reports by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics[3], The Royal Society[4], and Wellcome[5].

The aim of this Special Issue is to investigate publication ethics in light of the increasing focus on its importance to research culture.  Here, we welcome contributions that critically examine these issues.  Our intention is to increase the critical discourse surrounding the effect of publication ethics on research integrity, and we encourage submissions from the global research community.

This Special Issue especially welcomes contributions that address the following:

  • international differences in perception of research and publication ethics;
  • the role of metrics in assessment of research;
  • alternative methods to assess research excellence;
  • positive publication bias;
  • prepublication;
  • peer review and conflicts of interest;
  • authorship;
  • publication of supporting data;
  • pre-registration; and
  • effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in publication ethics.
[1] https://publicationethics.org/ (accessed 29 February 20)

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/research-integrity-17-19/ (accessed 29 February 20)

[3] https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/the-culture-of-scientific-research (accessed 29 February 20)

[4] https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/research-culture/ (accessed 29 February 20)

[5] https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture (accessed 29 February 20)

References

  1. Fyfe, A.; Coate, K.; Curry, S.; Lawson, S.; Moxham, N.; Mork Rostvik, C. Untangling Academic Publishing: a history of the relationship between commercial interests. Acad. Prestig. Circ. Res. 2017. doi:10.5281/zenodo.546100
  2. Moore, S.; Neylon, C.; Eve, M.P.; O’Donnell, D.P.; Pattinson, D. “Excellence R Us”: University research and the fetishasation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 2017, 3, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.105
  3. Biagioli, M., Lippman, A. Eds. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2020.
  4. Wallace, M.B.; Bowman, D.; Hamilton-Gibbs, H.; Siersema, P.D. Ethics in publication, part 2: Duplicate publishing, salami slicing, and large retrospective multicentre case series. Endoscopy 2018, 50, pp.463–465, doi:10.1055/s-00000012
  5. Haven, T.L.; Bouter, L.M.; Smulders, Y.M.; Tijdink, J.K. Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217931
  6. Fanelli, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, pp.1–11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
  7. John, L.K.; Lowenstein, G.; Prelec, D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Sci. 2012, 23, pp.524–532, doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
  8. Bouter, L. What research institutions can do to foster research integrity, Eng. Ethics 2020. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5
  9. Edwards, M.A.; Roy, S. Academic research in the 21st Century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Eng. Sci. 2017, 34, pp.51–67. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223
  10. Ekmekci, P.E. An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Health Care Philos. 2017, 20, pp.171–178, doi:10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0
  11. DeTora, L.; Foster, C.; Nori, M.; Simcoe, D.; Skobe, C.; Toroser, D. Publication ethics from the ground up. J. Clin. Pract. 2018, 72, e13063. doi:10.1111/ijcp.13063

Ms. Nicole Palmer
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Publications is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Publication ethics
  • Research integrity
  • Research culture
  • Meta-research
  • Journalology/publication science

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (8 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

14 pages, 282 KiB  
Article
The Perception of Academic Plagiarism in Industrial Engineering Students at a Public University in Lima
by Roberto Carlos Dávila Morán
Publications 2022, 10(4), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10040041 - 24 Oct 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2505
Abstract
The objective of this research was to study the perception of academic plagiarism as a dishonest behavior and the factors that characterize it in industrial engineering students at a public university in Lima. This work corresponds to a basic type of study with [...] Read more.
The objective of this research was to study the perception of academic plagiarism as a dishonest behavior and the factors that characterize it in industrial engineering students at a public university in Lima. This work corresponds to a basic type of study with a quantitative approach, non-experimental design and cross-sectional descriptive level. From the operational field, the study variable was the perception of academic plagiarism, and its dimensions were knowledge, motivations and practices. The population consisted of 2145 students, and intentional non-probabilistic sampling was carried out, resulting in a sample of 155 students in the 8th and 9th cycles of this public university. For data collection, a questionnaire was designed with 35 questions referring to the variable and its dimensions, with each question having five response options according to a Likert-type scale which were answered virtually by the students. The results from the descriptive point of view reflect that 56.1% of the students perceived plagiarism in a negative way and 43.9% perceived it in an irrelevant way. In the inferential field, the results did not show significant statistical differences (p > 0.05). In conclusion, most students believe that academic plagiarism is a behavior that affects their education and is unethical and dishonest. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
12 pages, 4312 KiB  
Article
Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021
by Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh and Bor Luen Tang
Publications 2022, 10(3), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030029 - 16 Aug 2022
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 3775
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to all human endeavors, and scientific research has not been spared. We queried how the retraction of publications might have been affected during the pandemic years 2020–2021. Searches performed with Retraction Watch Database (RWD) revealed that the [...] Read more.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to all human endeavors, and scientific research has not been spared. We queried how the retraction of publications might have been affected during the pandemic years 2020–2021. Searches performed with Retraction Watch Database (RWD) revealed that the total number of retractions (as proxied by retraction-related notices) rose steadily from 2013 into the pandemic years 2020–2021. Interestingly, while retractions in the physical and social sciences tapered during 2020–2021, those of the basic life sciences and health sciences showed robust increases in 2020, with the former maintaining a steep rise in 2021. This rise in retractions belied a tapering of total relevant publications in the same year and is confirmed with a complementary search strategy in Scopus. The retraction rate in the medical sciences, particularly those relating to infectious disease, is clearly affected by the anomalous high retraction rate of COVID-19-related papers. However, the sustained increase in the retraction rate of the basic life sciences papers, could be due, at least partly, to retraction spikes in several journals. The rise in retractions in the life and medical sciences could be attributed to heightened post-publication peer review of papers in online platforms such as PubPeer, where numerous problematic papers have been revealed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 2399 KiB  
Article
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
by Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu and Bogdan Toma
Publications 2022, 10(2), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10020018 - 21 Apr 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4066
Abstract
Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the busi-ness model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information [...] Read more.
Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the busi-ness model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze Pub-Med-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 Pub-Med-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the edi-tor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 248 KiB  
Article
Research Ethics, Open Science and CRIS
by Joachim Schöpfel, Otmane Azeroual and Monika Jungbauer-Gans
Publications 2020, 8(4), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8040051 - 1 Dec 2020
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 6103
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how current research information systems (CRIS) take into account ethical issues, especially in the environment of open science. The analysis is based on a review of the literature on research information management, CRIS, open science [...] Read more.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how current research information systems (CRIS) take into account ethical issues, especially in the environment of open science. The analysis is based on a review of the literature on research information management, CRIS, open science and research ethics. The paper provides a framework for the assessment of CRIS on two levels: are CRIS (= their data model, format, functionalities, etc.) compliant with ethical requirements from the research community, funding bodies, government, etc., i.e., can they appropriately process data on research ethics (protocols, misconduct, etc.), and which are the ethical issues of the development, implementation and usage of CRIS? What is the impact of new ethical requirements from the open science movement, such as integrity or transparency? Can CRIS be considered as ethical infrastructures or “infraethics”? Concluding this analysis, the paper proposes an empirical approach for further investigation of this topic. The originality of the paper is that there are very few studies so far that assess the implications of research ethics and open science on the CRIS. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
16 pages, 265 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications
by Mangirdas Morkunas, Elzė Rudienė, Lukas Giriūnas and Laura Daučiūnienė
Publications 2020, 8(4), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8040045 - 24 Oct 2020
Viewed by 4000
Abstract
The present paper aims at revealing and ranking the factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing-related publications. In order to rank the factors causing bias, the authors employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process method with three different scales representing all scale groups. The [...] Read more.
The present paper aims at revealing and ranking the factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing-related publications. In order to rank the factors causing bias, the authors employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process method with three different scales representing all scale groups. The data for the study were obtained through expert survey, which involved nine experts both from the academia and scientific publishing community. The findings of the study confirm that factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing related publications are sampling and sample frame errors, failure to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for researched subjects and non-responsiveness. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
22 pages, 1303 KiB  
Article
Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal
by Noella Edelmann and Judith Schoßböck
Publications 2020, 8(3), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044 - 15 Sep 2020
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 5633
Abstract
Open access (OA) publications play an important role for academia, policy-makers, and practitioners. Universities and research institutions set up OA policies and provide authors different types of support for engaging in OA activities. This paper presents a case study on OA publishing in [...] Read more.
Open access (OA) publications play an important role for academia, policy-makers, and practitioners. Universities and research institutions set up OA policies and provide authors different types of support for engaging in OA activities. This paper presents a case study on OA publishing in a scholarly community, drawing on qualitative and quantitative data gained from workshops and a survey. As the authors are the managing editors of the OA eJournal for eDemocracy and Open Government (JeDEM), the aim was to collect data and insights on the publication choices of authors interested in OA publishing and other crucial factors such as personal attitudes to publishing, institutional context, and digital literacy in order to improve the journal. In the first phase, two workshops with different stakeholders were held at the Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) held in Austria and in South Korea in 2016. In the second phase, an online survey was sent to all the users of the e-journal JeDEM in October 2019. From the workshops, key differences regarding OA perception and strategies between the stakeholder groups were derived. Participants strongly perceived OA publishing as a highly individualist matter embedded within a publishing culture emphasizing reputation and rankings. The survey results, however, showed that institutional support differs considerably for authors. Factors such as visibility, reputation, and impact play the biggest role for the motivation to publish OA. The results from both inquiries provide a better understanding of OA publishing attitudes and the relevant digital literacies but also suggest the need to investigate further the enablers or difficulties of scholarship, particularly in a digital context. They clearly point to the potential of regularly addressing the users of the journal as well as communicating with them the more nuanced aspects of OA publishing, non-traditional metrics, or respective digital literacies, in order to reduce misconceptions about OA and to support critical stances. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

5 pages, 176 KiB  
Brief Report
Should the Use of Patient Medical Information in Research Require the Approval of Attending Physicians?
by Eisuke Nakazawa, Shoichi Maeda, Makoto Udagawa and Akira Akabayashi
Publications 2022, 10(3), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030027 - 12 Aug 2022
Viewed by 1930
Abstract
Retrospective observational studies using medical records require researchers to guarantee the right to opt out of the study. However, is it also necessary to confirm whether the medical professionals who created those medical records permit their use as well? In this article, we [...] Read more.
Retrospective observational studies using medical records require researchers to guarantee the right to opt out of the study. However, is it also necessary to confirm whether the medical professionals who created those medical records permit their use as well? In this article, we consider possible options based on a fictitious scenario. Based on our deliberations, we recommend that the information be disclosed on the hospital’s homepage or in leaflets (principal investigator: hospital director), and, similar to patients, attending physicians should be given the opportunity to opt out. We also recommend that an application be submitted to the hospital’s research ethics committee. In this paper, we address the public interest aspect of the use of patient information as a primary item for ethical scrutiny. In addition to research ethics, this particular point underscores the importance of public health ethics, particularly as they pertain to the conflict between individual freedom and public interest. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
8 pages, 224 KiB  
Opinion
How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals
by Yuki Yamada
Publications 2021, 9(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004 - 24 Jan 2021
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 10610
Abstract
Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after [...] Read more.
Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, pre-submission peer-review, open peer-review, topping up reviewers, post-publication peer review, open recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields, the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Publication Ethics and Research Integrity)
Back to TopTop