retos de las publicaciones en el s. xxi: el plagio...
Post on 16-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Retos de las Publicaciones en el S. XXI:
El plagio científico
Dra. Laura Hausmann (RWTH, Alemania)
Dra. Natalia Ortuzar (Wiley, EE.UU.)
Sexto Seminario Entre Pares 2017
Martes 05 de septiembre de 2017
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 2
AgendaPart 1. Handling Ethics – An Editorial Office Perspective
Part 2. A Publisher’s Perspective on Ethics and Integrity
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Laura Hausmann, PhD/MBA
Managing Editor, Journal of Neurochemistry
3
Part 1.
Handling Ethics –
An Editorial Office Perspective
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
- Published by the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN)
- About 900 submissions per year (original research, Reviews)
4
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 5
JNeurochem publishes in the following areas:
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
“[The] inability to replicate findings must be properly distinguished from willful scientific misconduct”www.sfn.org/News-and-Calendar/Neuroscience-Quarterly/Spring-2015/Message-from-the-President
Journal responsibilities:
Scientific Quality vs. Researcher Reputation
What are publication ethics, and why are they needed?
6
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Lancet 2009, 374: 86–89
The authors call this
correctable problems
but estimate that at
each of the stages 2, 3,
and 4, 50 of
investments are lost,
summing up to 85%
loss.
Waste of resources
Patients at risk
No reliability
7
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
An Editor’s duty:
Keep the quality high
- Study design
- Scientific reporting (not only of data, but also methods)
- Characterization and sharing of reagents
- Proper presentation of data
- Prevention of ethical breaches INCLUDING PLAGIARISM
- Quality of the peer review process
8
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Scientific Misconduct
• Fake authorship, fake reviewers
• Data and image manipulation
• Plagiarism
9
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
The Temptation of Data Manipulation
10
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Scientific fraud may have serious consequences!
• 5 years of prison, 3 years of probation thereafter.
• Paying back >$7.000.000 of funds to the U.S. National Institutes of Health(http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/22/hiv-vaccine-researcher-who-confessed-to-fraud-files-appeal-of-57-month-prison-sentence/)
nymeg.com
11
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Ethical allegations at JNeurochem – Are they of concern?
Year # of allegations Minor Major
2012 14 8 6
2013 25↗ 9↗ 16↗
2014 10↘ 5↘ 5↘
2015 11↗ 6↗ 5↘
2016 19↗ 11↗ 8↗
Minor offenses include: authorship issues such as unacknowledged contributions;
(self-)plagiarism, minor data misrepresentation, undisclosed conflicts of interests and animal subject issues.
Major offenses include: extensive plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate/triplicate submission and/or withholding
relevant information related to ongoing investigations.
12
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
More cases or stricter criteria?
13
Fraud constitutes for 67% of 2,047 biomedical and life science publications since 1977 that were listed as „retracted“ on PubMed on 3-May-2012 (Fang et al. PNAS 2012)
Wang et al. (2017)
World Neurosurg 103:809-814
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.014
In Neurosurgery, the number of retracted articles constantly increased since 1995.
Main reasons were duplication and plagiarism.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Reasons for Retractions, and Stigmata
Fang et al., PNAS (2012)
USA: Office of Research Integrity (https://ori.hhs.gov/)
European Network of Research Integrity Offices
(www.enrio.eu/)
China? National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC): 40% plagiarisms in 542 investigated cases
14
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Fake authorship, fake reviewers
15
Published in: Science 29 Nov 2013: Vol. 342, Issue 6162, pp. 1035-1039; DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6162.1035
Corrected in: Science 10 Jan 2014: Vol. 343, Issue 6167, pp. 137; DOI: 10.1126/science.343.6167.137-d
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
JNeurochem faced a case of fake reviewer accounts, using email addresses such as NAME,INSTITUTION@hotmail.com
16
(covered in the
shown Review article)
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Authorship on a manuscript should be based on the following criteria defined by the International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors:[1]
1) Substantial contributions to conception & design; acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data
2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and
3) Final approval of the version to be published
If not all criteria are met, contributors should be listed with their respective contribution in the
Acknowledgments instead.
[1] www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html
Authorship Criteria
17
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
First author: conducts/supervises data generation/analysis and proper presentation/interpretation of results; drafts (& submits) manuscript
Corresponding author: communicates about the research; usually person whose address is least likely to change
Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments (e.g. technical staff who helped collecting parts of the data w/o being involved in study concept, data interpretation, drafting etc.; people who gifted material such as cell lines or knockout animals unless the study was performed in collaboration
Agreement between authors prior to submission: • Order of names
• Right to re-use data
• What happens if an author left the lab and can no longer be reached?
18
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Discovering Image Manipulation
Contrast enhancements, even when performed with the honest motif to improve figure quality, can represent image manipulation!
Handling and manipulation of images must be clearly described in the text and figure legends!
19
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
A practical example:
A Western blot with suspected manipulation was requested as
original blot. Response:
“I have tried to track the original WB that were used for figure
2. Since I was not sure which ones were exactly the same ones
(the figure was created more than a year ago), I found it would
be the best to re-send the figure with new JNK bands. I hope
that you would find it appropriate.”
How to justify data recycling:
“… some data mix up is there with our paper […] We will
correct all and we will submit the new corrected one.”
Language issues
“Thank you for the information on our paper mentioned
above. According you direction, we cheated the grammar and
syntax sentences in Abstract, Introduction and Discussion,
and inform you that there is no alteration now.”
20
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Unregistered post on https://pubpeer.com/publications/5065038F5B318B398FCE6FE0E61CE1: “Fig. 2 has been corrected twice, but bands in the actin loading control still look like mirror images.
http://imgur.com/fWMavJu “ (referring to Carol Wadham, Angela Parker, Lijun Wang, Pu Xia (2007) "High glucose attenuates protein S-nitrosylation in endothelial cells: role of oxidative stress", Diabetes, 56)\
The Editor‘s duty to keep the scientific record clear
Corrigenda vs. Retractions: A fine line
Corrigendum Retraction Erratum
Correct an error discovered after publication (can be substantial)
Conclusions or data reliability as a whole called into question
Minor error mostly on the
publisher‘s/typesetter‘s end
Must not serve to cover fraud! Not every retracted paper is
fraudulent!
21
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Years Total no. of Corrigenda Average/year
1960-1969 10 1.0
1970-1979 30 3.0
1980-1989 21 2.1
1990-1999 34 3.4
2000-2009 84 8.4
2010-2016 43 (extrapolated: 72) 7.2
The number of published Corrigenda tended to increase over time:
0
20
40
60
80
100
1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2016
No
. o
f p
ub
lish
ed
Co
rrig
en
da
Year
Total no. of Corrigenda
22
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 23
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Retracted papers continue to be cited
Bornemann-Cimenti & Sandner-Kiesling (2015)
Clin.Exp.Otorhinolaryngol. 8(1):81
… non-reliable data find their way into the literature …
… where they form the basis for follow-up study design (e.g. for power analyses, estimates of effect size, genetic allele frequencies, etc)…
… and continue to be cited – sometimes more frequently than other publications including the most frequently cited paper in one study(Fulton et al. 2015; http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/28/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/10 most highly cited
retracted papers)
24
Why?“Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader; 31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as retracted in any way.” (Steen 2011)
It often takes long before a suspicious paper is actually being retracted.(http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/04/nature-retracts-paper-six-years-after-it-was-flagged-for-fraud/ )
Avoidance of false accusations: Journals only retract following definite evidence for concern.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Ethical issues - Plagiarism
• Plagiarism:• Re-writing does not honor the original author,
proper referencing does!• Acknowledge the original source: the critical point is to avoid stealing
somebody‘s ideas (rather than „only“ the phrasing)
• Self-plagiarism:• Repeating sections (almost) verbatim from one‘s own previous work is
considered self-plagiarism and should be avoided!
• Referring to method descriptions instead of re-iterating all the details saves space (but be sure to provide all relevant information required to reproduce the experiments, and to cite primary not secondary literature)
25
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
• Smith et al. write: „Alzheimer disease is the most prevalent form of dementia. It has been
shown to be triggered by tau aggregates (Johnson et al., 1980)“. They re-use that sentence
verbatim in ten different publications, but acknowledge the original source. Is this
plagiarism?
• Methods: Long verbatim paragraphs from an earlier paper using the same methodology.
• Results: Verbatim paragraphs from an earlier paper from their own workgroup (partly
different authors, same last author), using a different compound
• Overlapping or identical author list: Is there such a thing as “Self-plagiarism”?
What is plagiarism?
26
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Plagiarism checks are one mouseclick away.
• 17 of 25 cases at JNeurochem between 2013 and 2015 with plagiarism or data recycling had Chinese authors => Create awareness of policies
• Unreferenced statements from earlier publications (foreign and own (!) works)
• “Stealing ideas” vs verbatim phrasings
• Most concerns related to images were discovered from reviewers and/or editors.
• Overlapping or identical author lists: Is there something like „Self Plagiarism“?
• Particular case: Review articles, summarizing previous publications
27
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Plagiarism Checks
28
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
o Improve the scientific quality of the submitted paper
o Alert the editor about concerns
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/06/PeerReview.jpeg
The Role of Peer Reviewers
29
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Public (open) or Anonymous Peer Review?
An analysis by Paul Brooke of 497 papers on science-fraud.org, of which the scientific integrity had been questioned, had either been publicly discussed (274 papers) or non-publicly discussed (223 papers):
“For primary outcomes, the public set exhibited a 6.5-fold fold higher rate of retractions, and an 7.7-fold higher rate of corrections, versus the private set. Combined, 23% of the publicly discussed papers were subjected to some type of corrective action, versus 3.1% of the private non-discussed papers.”
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/03/does-publicly-questioning-papers-lead-to-more-corrections-and-retractions/ (4.4.14)
30
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Licenses & Copyright
o Re-usage of material
o Accessibility to material
o Proper referencing
31
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Publication Ethicso What are scholarly ethics guidelines?
AUTHOR GUIDELINES
• Data reporting and reproducibility
• Image or data manipulation
• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
o Where do expressions of concern originate from?
• (Anonymous) whistleblowers
• RetractionWatch®
• Reviewers or readers
o What can be done?
• Specify requirements & expectations in Author Instructions
• Request Ethics statements & approvals, informed consent
• Statistics (e.g. www.nih.gov/about/reporting-preclinical-research.htm)
• Check all submissions with plagiarism software
• Mandate e.g. ORCiD, ResearcherID to validate author credentials
• Authors: Carefully check paper proofs upon acceptance/publication!
32
PENALTIES FOR SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
• Ban from submission
• Contact author‘s institution, other editors where appropriate
• Blacklists“ problematic esp. for false allegation => reputation
• Stigma of retractions => risk of punishing honest reporting of errors by authors
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Dr. Natalia Ortuzar
Associate Editorial Director, North America
Editorial Management, John Wiley & Sons
33
Part 2.
A Publisher’s Perspective on
Ethics and Integrity
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 34
Outline1. Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
2. Literature Integrity and Reproducibility
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 35
Ethics Governance &
Publisher Resources
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 36
Editor. The Editor is the first line in ethical cases. Many are resolved without further escalation, but sometimes more in-depth investigation is required.
Publisher. Like many publishing houses, Wiley has workflows in place to ensure consistent action in response to ethical concerns in our journals. Editors work closely with their publisher to ensure any action meets with Wiley’s best practice guidelines.
COPE. The Committee for Publishing Ethics provides advice to Editors and Publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 37
Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
A Publisher’s Perspective
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A
Publisher's Perspective, Second Edition, is widely
acknowledged as the industry's most comprehensive
publishing ethics guidance.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 38
Research integrity- Misconduct- Whistle blowing- Fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation- Plagiarism- Duplicate and redundant publication- Sanctions
Research ethics in journal articles- Human rights, privacy, and confidentiality- Cultures and heritage- Registering clinical trials- Animals in research- Biosecurity- Reporting guidelines
Editorial standards and processes- Authorship- Authorship disputes- Funding- Peer review- Timing of publication- Editors and journal staff as authors- Conflicts of interest- Libel and defamation- Editorial independence and commercial issues- Academic debate- Appeals- Corrections- Retractions and Expressions of Concern- Withdrawal of articles- Data protection legislation
Copyright and intellectual propertyResources for responsible publication policies and proceduresFlowchartsSample letters
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 39
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
A Publisher’s Perspective, Second Edition
• Updated version of the first edition published by Wiley in 2006
• Provides guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, researchers and other audiences
• The uniquely multidisciplinary guidelines have been revised, updated, and reviewed by 30 editors and ethics experts
• Guidance added about whistle-blowers, animal research and clinical research –particularly around clinical trial registration
• Now also includes guidance on best practice for journals in human rights and confidentiality, and addresses how approaches differ between cultures
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 40
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Delivers clarity Provides understanding
around ethical boundaries
in a rapidly changing
world of scientific
research and publishing
Prevents
misconductHelps authors avoid
committing scientific
misconduct and breach of
publishing ethics
Provides
support Offers a centralised
location for authors to find
guidance and get advice
from real people
Three benefits to authors:
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 41
Editor. The Editor is the first line in ethical cases. Many are resolved without further escalation, but sometimes more in-depth investigation is required.
Publisher. Like many publishing houses, Wiley has workflows in place to ensure consistent action in response to ethical concerns in our journals. Editors work closely with their publisher to ensure any action meets with Wiley’s best practice guidelines.
COPE. The Committee for Publishing Ethics provides advice to Editors and Publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 42
Committee on Publication Ethics
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of
publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of
research and publication misconduct
In 2017
• 11,000+ members in 103 countries
• International and diverse
• All research and scholarly work
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 43
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Chris Graf
Director, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics, Wiley
Co-Chair, COPE
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 44
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Sample Letters.
designed for editors, covering
a range of scenarios e.g.
suspected plagiarism, change
of authorship, undisclosed
CoIs.
Flowcharts.
designed to help editors
follow COPE’s Code of
Conduct and implement its
advice when faced with cases
of suspected misconduct.
Guidelines.
documents that describe
“Codes of Conduct” and “Best
Practice” in publishing ethics.
COPE Resources – aimed at Editors and Publishers, useful for all.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 45
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Emphasizes the need for
ethical practices
throughout research –
responsible collaboration,
research practices, etc.
Ensures that published
work is of value to the
research community and
can be relied upon.
Improves the
reproducibility of the
research, allowing others to
build upon it and move the
field forward.
Why are publishing ethics so important?
Ensures integrity of the literature.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 46
Available Tools
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
Software tools and dedicated companies are
increasingly available to identify or avoid ethical
misconduct in scientific literature, and ensure a
submission under evaluation meets the requirements for
publication.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 47
Literature Integrity &
Reproducibility
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 48
Integrity is a hot topic in research at the
moment, with funding agencies and
publishers looking to improve the
reproducibility of research output.
Literature Integrity & Reproducibility
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 49
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 50
Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources
http://www.stm-assoc.org/standards-technology/tech-trends-2021/
The annual STM Association summary of tech trends in 2017 has the central theme: “trust and integrity”.
Defined in 4 segments:
1. Accuracy and curation (with, for example, ideas in reproducibility, integrity checks, and editorial process innovation)
2. Smart services (with, for example, ideas in automating integrity checks)
3. Serving individual researchers (with, for example, ideas in tracking individuals and their contributions, like using ORCIDs and RRIDs)
4. Collaboration and sharing (with, for example, ideas in the “open” space, like open science in the form of lab books and peer review).
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 51
Accuracy & Curation
Quality control automation Data curation Plagiarism Detection Editorial process innovation Digital workflow optimization Statistics validation Metadata for all outputs and research artifacts Trust in peer review Data image manipulation Reproducibility Validation tools
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 52
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/27/harvard-teaching-hospital-pay-10-million-settle-research-misconduct-allegations/
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 53
Literature Integrity and Reproducibility
Chart taken from Nature Volume 533 Number 7604 pp437-572http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
Reproducibility is a known problem and is being addressed at every stage.
The root causes of the problem are manifold –ethical misconduct is only part of the equation.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
Community-led effort to introduce better reporting standardsfor research resources through Research Resource Identifiers(RRIDs), authentication tags for key biological resources.
54
The Resource
Identification Initiative
www.force11.org/group/resource-identification-initiative
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 55
What is an RRID?
Machine readable
Uniform across publishers
RRID database draws from existing community repositories using community accession
numbers
Use in publications allows readers to discover:
What resources are used in this paper and which specific ones?
What other information is known about these resources?
What other papers use this resource?
In use for antibodies, animals, cell lines and software tools
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 56
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 57
Bandrowski, et al. ”The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing”,Brain and Behavior, 2016; 6(1), e00417; DOI: 10.1002/brb3.417
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 58
Closing Remarks
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 59
Literature Integrity & Reproducibility
integrity
- by which we mean
reliability and
trustworthiness thus,
reproducibility.
ethics
- by which we mean
appropriate conduct, i.e. no
fraud or misconduct like
fake peer reviewers or data
fabrication.
impact
- by which we mean the
perceived importance and
significance to the
development of the field.
Quality in research publishing is defined by three parameters…
Upholding Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics by Chris Graf, Wiley Exchangeshttps://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2017/07/11/upholding-research-integrity-and-publishing-ethics
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 60
A Publisher’s Perspective on Ethics and Integrity
evidence-based science…the
bedrock of public policy and the
solutions to our most urgent problems
Mark Allin, former CEO, Wiley
“Values have no Borders”
https://t.co/7J2Z3fzHR0
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 61
Resources
A Publisher’s Perspective on Ethics and Integrity
exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines (Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines)
publicationethics.org (COPE website)
https://t.co/7J2Z3fzHR0 (“Values have no Borders”)
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre 62
Thank you for your kind attention!
Email questions to
Dra. Laura Hausmann lhausmann@ukaachen.de
Dra. Natalia Ortuzar nortuzar@wiley.com
or stop by the Wiley booth after this presentation.
Entre Pares 2017 | Martes 05 de septiembre
“Como publicar en una revista científica del área de bilogía y química”
Calling all early career researchers!
sala uno | Hoy, 17:00–18:30
top related