PUBLICATION AND ITS ETHICS

Elsadig Agabna Elhadi

)) ((

:

.

...

TOPICS

General introduction about publication and type of scientific papers

How to select media for publication

Publication process

Authorship

Conflict of interest

Publication misconduct

Tips

INTRODUCTION

Publication of a research article represents the

final stage of a scientific project.

Robert Day (1983) defines a scientific paper as

a written and published report describing

original research results

Research = Honesty

WHY WE PUBLISH

Publication of a research article represents the final stage of a scientific project.

Why Publish?

If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done (G. Whitesides, Adv. Mater., 2004,)

if it wasnt published, it wasnt done in E.H. Miller 1993

1- Remember..

2- Under stand

3-scientific communication

4- Intellectual property

5- promotion and self esteem

communicate : The purpose

of your paper is to explain

why you did a piece of work,

how you did it, what you

found, and what

your findings might mean r

1. RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CHANNELS:

Research paper; research reviews; short

communications; conference papers and

posters; theses; books and book chapters;

annual reports; working papers; newsletters;

project proposals and reports; websites; blogs

and discussion groups.

RESEARCH PAPER

The purpose of a paper journal is to communicate

original research that has not been done or

published before, to other scientists. The findings

are believed to be fact because they are refereed

by experts in the field before they can be accepted

for publication.

The papers are judged according to originality,

novelty, quality of scientific content and

contribution to existing knowledge.

RESEARCH REVIEWS

The review is summary and interpretation of

existing facts and theories within a particular

field; it develops logical arguments until they

end in new hypotheses, and speculations on

how they may be tested. It leads to new areas

of research, which must be testable and must

be supported by facts .

Simple literature surveys are not accepted.

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

These are preliminary results of a project, perhaps one seasons results, or results that are not of major significance but are nevertheless interesting.

Annual reports

Annual reports are a description of the activities that has been done during a year. The intention is not so much to prove a hypothesis, rather justify budget expenditure in terms of research undertaken, and demonstrate impact to attract more funding.

CONFERENCE PAPERS AND POSTER AND

THESES

Conferences offer scientists an opportunity to present results of research that is still at a preliminary stage, but that contains interesting developments. Because time is limited, oral papers are short.

Thesis contains an extensive review of the literature, as well as the results of a number of experiments, all aimed at testing a unifying hypothesis. Some of the material may already have been published in a series of research papers during the course of the research

BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS

I t is a synthesis of knowledge and information

about a particular subject. It rarely has a

fundamental hypothesis.

WORKING PAPERS

AND NEWSLETTERS

A working paper is preliminary report of a piece of

research that is interesting, but intended for peer-

reviewed publication. Often authors may release

working papers to share ideas about a topic or to

elicit feedback before submitting to a peer-

reviewed conference or academic journal.

Newsletter communicate quickly facts that are of

interest to its Readers, with little emphasis on

justification or methodology.

PROJECT PROPOSALS AND REPORTS

A project proposal represents the justification

for a programme of work, with the aim of

producing measurable outputs that will

demonstrably reach a clearly defined objective.

Like a research paper, it starts out with a

hypothesis that has led to a proposed course of

action and a programme of research designed

to test the concept.

WEBSITES AND BLOGS AND DISCUSSION

GROUPS

Websites have a potentially huge audience with different

levels of expertise, and so offer scientists an opportunity to publicise the results and impact of their research to groups of people different from the usual scientists.

Blogs (a contraction of the term web log) are personal, representing the views of the writer, and so offer scientists a chance to put forward their own ideas, free of the constraints of the institution they are working within. Discussion groups are electronic meeting places, where groups of people with a common interest can share their views in a continuing discussion.

HOW TO SELECT A JOURNAL

Select the journal to which you are going to submit your paper before you start to write it.

What is the scientific level of the journal?

Look at past issues of the journal and ask yourself the question:

Is my work as good as, or better than, the material the journal is publishing?

Who is the editor? Who is on the editorial board?

Which authors publish in the journal?

Does the journal have an international audience?

What are the aims and scope of the journal?

How often is the journal published?

What types of article does the journal

publish?

Are there any conditions to submitting to the

journal?

Membership , feeetc..

COVER LETTER

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Please find enclosed or attached our manuscript entitled New Sudan by Ahmed et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sudan science journal..

Followed by one sentence that describes the state of the field, one sentence that describes what you did in your study, one sentence that describes what you found, and one sentence that explains the importance of your results

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission

Sincerely yours, Ahmed.

Paper submission

Paper rejected

Managing Editor check to ensure

that it complies with the journals

instructions

Reviewers (2 or 3)Author edit and

resubmit

Editor assessment

Author response to

comments

Minor revision

Major revision

Rejectedaccepted

To particular Journal not

many at the same time

publicationProf check

PEER REVIEWING

Dates back to the 1700s

Is unpaid, volunteer work, and culture of

service to the profession.

REVIEWING PROCESS

SINGLE-BLIND REVIEW: The reviewers know the authors are, but the authors don't

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW: The reviewers and the authors do not know each other.

OPEN REVIEW: reviewers and authors know each other.

Indeed, any 'expert' in the field must be a rival by definition, and conflicted by definition. Yet we trust their judgments. DR MICHAEL CURTIS

ETHICS FOR REVIEWER

Declare any conflict of interest

Avoid asking the author cites their papers,

Avoid use the paper before publication in their work

Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.

Use polite language

Delete the manuscript and related materials after reviewing.

Double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review, have been involved with any of the work in the paper and the paper is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Think that the reviewers as friend and

unbiased and put substantial (unpaid) effort

to understanding your work and improve it.

The comment from Reviewers:

Accepted with no changes If dreams come

true

Rejected Dont worry If confident about it:

Ask the editor for new reviewers I dont

advise or resubmit to other journal

Attend a course on scientific writing

Accept with change

Major revision: Revise and Resubmit

Indicates that the Action Editor has significant concerns about some aspect(s) of the study design, method, analysis, and/or interpretation but also believes that the paper is likely to make a significant contribution to the literature if the identified limitations can be addressed adequately.

Revise the paper ; dont think of resubmitting it to different journal without modification. Because it may be send to the same reviewers.

MINOR REVISION:

Indicates that the Action Editor is satisfied

with major aspects of the study design,

method, analysis, and interpretation and is

requesting either minor additions or points

of clarification to enhance the final product.

Good news you are in the road, Every

published paper is revised at least once

The comment of reviewer is about the work,

they arent personal

The Rules for respond to reviewers comments

1- Reply politely, thanks them for their comments acknowledge their contribution when they have made suggestions that improve the manuscript.

Respond to all reviewers comment fully and in sequence. For example Reviewers 1 Comment No 1 Reply.

When you disagree with them which is Ok do it in very polite way and support your arguments with evidence

EXAMPLE AGREEING WITH THE

REVIEWERS COMMENTS

Dear Editor,

Let us open by thanking the two reviewers for their insightful comments. They gave us clear

guidance and some positive critiques. Following their suggestions, we spent more time

reading and came to the revision process better prepared. We enjoyed the process and think

that the reviewers comments have tremendously affected the revised draft. Both reviewers

should now clearly see the difference they made to the revised manuscript. In the following

lines we detail the changes in line with the reviewers comments.

Reviewer: 1

Again, we would like to express our appreciation for your extremely thoughtful suggestions. As

you will see below we have been able to revise and improve the paper as a result of your

valuable feedback. You highlighted that we did not spend enough time discussing the implications of our arguments for current understandings of Druckers work. We agree with your suggestion and have added in two additional paragraphs in the conclusion (p.30-1), and a few comments within

the paper (i.e p.11), that are devoted to outlining the implications of our analysis. We have

kept our discussion brief to ensure we maintain the commitment to the appropriate page

and word length, but what we do outline should make clear what this perspective on

Drucker makes relevant for management practitioners and scholars alike.

REJECTION

Paul Raymond Hunter, a professor of social protection at the UK-based University of East Anglia

Rejection of manuscripts is common for those who write manuscripts, researchers are second to sales people in receiving rejections.

If your manuscripts are not getting rejected, then you are not being ambitious enough, Researchers should send their manuscripts to credible journals.

Use the reviewers and editor comment to strengthen the weak areas of the paper.

Resubmit to the same journal after modification or other Journals

WHO'S AFRAID OF PEER REVIEW?

JOHN BOHANNON

Open access Journal: Story

He create a fake paper and sent to open access journal

Results:

157 acceptance and 98 had rejection.

60% without any sign of peer review

70% ultimately accepted the paper. Most reviews focused exclusively on the paper's layout, formatting, and language

4 OCTOBER 60 2013 VOL 342 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

AN AUTHOR

Is someone who, through his / her own scientific work, has made a substantial contribution to a publication.

planning, execution, evaluation or supervision of research, and to writing the manuscript and approving the final version of the manuscript

Thus provide just fund or data collection or general supervision of research group will not qualified a person as an author.

Contributors whose contribution is not substantial should be listed in the acknowledgement section.

ORDER OF LISTING

Authorship is not a problem in paper with one

author or two authors is clear, but the problem

is when there are more than two authors.

1-The sequence-determines-credit approach

(SDC). The sequence of authors reflected the

importance of their contributions in descending

order. The first author has the greatest

contribution and the last author the least.

The equal contribution norm (EC). Authors

are listed in alphabetical order similar

contributions.

The first-last-author-emphasis norm

(FLAE). Highlights the importance of the first

and the last author;

, the percent-contribution-indicated (PCI)

each authors contribution to be expressed

in %, using various scoring systems.

UNETHICAL AUTHORSHIP

Guest author: or gifted author or Pressure author :

He is a person who has no contribution to the

paper ( Friend or senior researcher or Boss).

Ghost author: Ghost author , commissioned to

write on another persons behalf, generally works

for a fee and agrees that the text will not be

published under his own name.

Duplicate or dividing one research into smaller one

(self plagiarism).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

An interest may be defined as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.

Conflicts of interest are situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigators judgement in conducting or reporting research. AAMC, 1990

A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research. NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

An interest may be defined as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.

Conflicts of interest are situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigators judgement in conducting or reporting research. AAMC, 1990

A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research. NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research

Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process author, reviewer, or editor has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected.

Authors: When they submit a manuscript, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.

REVIEWERS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Collaborated with the authors recently,

Based in the same institution as the authors,

Are in direct competition with the authors,

Have personal conflict or close personal

relationship or association with the authors,

Have a financial interest in the manuscript.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Researcher trust the data publish by other researcher, they use the information blindly (system of trust) without checking them.

(Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell 2005)

Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results

Bias reporting

Fabrication means that data is quite simply

invented.

Falsification the existing data is pruned to

take on the required form or massaged to

give the desired result

It is also means manipulating research

materials, equipment, or processes, or

changing or omitting data or results such

that the research is not accurately

represented in the research record.

PLAGIARISM

the Latin plagiare, to steal

Plagiarism is stealing the work of another and presenting it as if it were ones own.

The verb to plagiarize To take and use as one's own (the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another person);

If you steal from one author, its plagiarism; if you steal from many, its research. - Wilson Mizner (18761933)

TO AVOID PLAGRIASM

Always acknowledge every source used whether paraphrased, summarized, or enclosed quotations.

When paraphrasing and/or summarizing keep the exact meaning of the other authors ideas using a new vocabulary and sentence structure. (take note).

Dont depend on the secondary summary or review. Always consult the primary literature.

Avoid cutting and pasting from the Internet

STEPS IN WRITING A PARAPHRASE

Paraphrasing involves changing a text so that it is quite different from the source, while retaining the meaning.

1. Read the original carefully.

2. Substitute words and rearrange sentences, Check about the precise meanings.

3. Check the meaning of your paraphrase against the original.

4. Identify the source you are paraphrasing.

SELF PLAGIARISM

Is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the Author republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work.

Roig identifies a few types of self-plagiarism:

Republishing the same paper that is published elsewhere without notifying the reader nor publisher of the journal

Publishing a significant study as smaller studies to increase the number of publications rather than publishing one large study

Reusing portions of a previously written (published or unpublished text).

HOW TO AVOID SELF PLAGIARISM

Short quotes from a previously published

article should be set in quotation marks and

original version cited

Permission must be requested when large

sections are reproduced

Methods and literature reviews should be

paraphrased.

CITATIONS

Citations express the use of information ( Croni

n, 1981).

citations are signposts left behind

after information has been utilized, Linda C.

Smith (1989)

A formalized account of the information use an

d can be taken as a strong indicator of receptio

n at this level (Glnzel and Schoepflin, 1995).

IMPACT FACTOR

The ISI Impact Factor (IF) simply relates the citations a journal has received in a given year to the number of papers it has published in the preceding two years. They select two years because 25% of all citations in the current years literature were to papers that were only two to three years old and so it was decided upon to use

The prior two cited years as the basis for calculating a current year impact factor. However, two years is not enough for an article to reach its peak in citations, thus 5 years IF is introduced.

Journals with high Impact Factors are more prestigious.

and have higher rejection rates.

The 2014 impact factor of a journal would be

calculated as follows:

2014 impact factor = A/B.

where:

A = the number of times that all items

published in that journal in 20012 and 2013

were cited by indexed publications during 2014.

B = the total number of "citable items"

published by that journal in 2006 and 2007.

("Citable items" for this calculation are usually

articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not

editorials or letters to the editor).

Factors affecting IF calculation

Research area: Basic or applied; Basic research journal has high impact factor

Type of document : Review Journal has high impact

Language: English language journal has high impact (USA)

Self citation:

Editorial and letters to the editors are not included; journal with high citable letters and editorial may has high impact F