Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GUIDELINES
SUMMARY
These Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics describe Blackwell Publishings position on the major ethical principles of academic publishing and review
factors that may foster ethical behavior or create problems. The aims are to encourage discussion, to initiate changes where they are needed, and to provide practical guidance, in the form of Best Practice statements, to inform these changes.
Blackwell Publishing recommends that editors adapt and adopt the suggestions
outlined to best fit the needs of their own particular publishing environment.
Background
Academic publishing depends, to a great extent, on
trust. Editors trust peer reviewers to provide fair
assessments, authors trust editors to select appropriate peer reviewers, and readers put their trust in the
peer-review process. Academic publishing also occurs
in an environment of powerful intellectual, financial,
and sometimes political interests that may collide or
compete. Good decisions and strong editorial processes designed to manage these interests will foster a
sustainable and efficient publishing system, which
will benefit academic societies, journal editors,
authors, research funders, readers, and publishers.
Good publication practices do not develop by
chance, and will become established only if they are
actively promoted.
These Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics
have been written to offer journal editors a framework for developing and implementing their own
publication ethics policies and systems. In some sectors, notably medicine, the debate about publication
ethics is moving rapidly. In response, and at suitable
intervals, we will update our guidance. The general
principles of publication ethics are grouped and discussed under broad themes. Statements of principle
are followed by factors that may affect them. The
order of the sections does not imply a hierarchy of
importance.
Transparency
Who funded the work?
Readers have a right to know who funded a research
project or the publication of a document.
For research papers, authorship should be decided at the study launch. Policing authorship is
beyond the responsibilities of an editor. Editors
should demand transparent and complete
descriptions of who has contributed to a paper.
Editors should employ appropriate systems to
inform contributors about authorship criteria (if
used) and/or to obtain accurate information
about individuals contributions. Blackwell Publishing can advise Blackwell editors about how
best to do this, and the Blackwell Publishing electronic submission system can be used to explain
authorship criteria, and to collect and manage
authorship information efficiently.
Editors should ask authors to submit, as part
of their initial submission package, a statement
that all individuals listed as authors meet the
appropriate authorship criteria, that nobody who
qualifies for authorship has been omitted from
the list, and that contributors and their funding
sources have been properly acknowledged, and
that authors and contributors have approved the
acknowledgment of their contribution.
In the majority of cases, editors should only consider publishing information and images from
individual participants/subjects or patients where
the authors have obtained the individuals explicit
consent. Exceptional cases may arise where gaining the individuals explicit consent is not possible but where publishing an individuals
information or image can be demonstrated to
have a genuine public health interest. In cases like
this, before taking any action editors should seek
and follow council from the journal owner,
Blackwell Publishing and/or legal professionals.
In the case of technical images (for example,
radiographs, micrographs) editors should ensure
that all information that could identify the subject has been removed from the image.
See Box 9.
Read Blackwell Publishing Copyright FAQs section
1.22 What is the situation regarding retractions? (10).
considerable debate and study. Findings are contradictory and there is no clear evidence of the superiority of any one system over another. The benefits
and feasibility of different systems probably vary
between disciplines. Editors should choose a peerreview system that best suits their journal.
Journals should have clearly set-out policies to
explain the type of peer review they use (for example, blinded, non-blinded, multiple reviewers) and to
explain whether peer review varies between types of
article. Systems differ between journals (one system,
for example, would be to state that editorials and letters are not peer reviewed, and that research articles
and review articles are always peer reviewed). Material that has not been peer reviewed should be clearly
identified (for example, in a short description of different types of content in instructions for authors).
Editors should apply consistent standards in their
peer-review processes.
If discussions between an author, editor, and peer
reviewer have taken place in confidence, they should
remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been
given by all parties or there are exceptional circumstances (for example, when they might help substantiate
claims of intellectual property theft during peer review
Peer reviewer conduct and intellectual property, p. 12).
Editors or board members should never be
involved in editorial decisions about their own work.
Journals should have clearly set-out policies for
handling submissions from members of their editorial board or employees. Some journals will not
consider original research papers from editors or
employees of the journal. Others have special procedures for ensuring fair peer review in these instances.
The title of the erratum, retraction, or expression of concern should include the words Erratum, Retraction, or Expression of concern.
It should be published on a numbered page
(print and electronic) and should be listed in the
journals table of contents.
It should cite the original article.
It should enable the reader to identify and
understand the correction in context with the
errors made, or should explain why the article is
being retracted, or should explain the editors
concerns about the contents of the article.
It should be linked electronically with the original electronic publication, wherever possible.
It should be in a form that enables indexing
and abstracting services to identify and link
errata, retractions, and expressions of concern to
their original publications.
Appeals
Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.
Journals should establish a mechanism for authors
to appeal peer review decisions. Explaining such a
system clearly in the journals instructions may benefit both authors and editors (for example, by discouraging repeated or unfounded appeals).
Editors should mediate all exchanges between
authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review
process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting
comments from additional peer reviewer(s), if the
editor feels that this would be helpful. Journals
should consider stating in their guidelines that the
editors decision following such an appeal is final.
Journals should consider having a mechanism for
authors (and others) to comment on aspects of the
journals management.
See Flowchart 6 (p. 23) How to handle appeals
and Flowchart 7 (p. 24) What to do if someone
complains about your journal.
Conflicts of interest
Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to affect their
ability to present or review data objectively. These
include relevant financial (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, speakers fees),
personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests.
Financial conflicts may be the easiest to identify
but they may not be the most influential. Horton
R. Lancet (12).
relevant to the content being published and whenever they are significant. For example, owning
USD10 stock in a company that manufactures a product discussed in an article would not be significant,
whereas consultancy fees of USD10,000 annually or
the equivalent of 5% of an authors gross income
from the previous year could be considered significant. Editors may consider not publishing details of
authors interests when these interests have no relevance to the content being published. If there is
doubt about whether conflicts are relevant or significant, it is prudent to disclose.
The existence of a conflict of interest (for example,
employment with a research funder) should not prevent someone from being listed as an author if they
qualify for authorship. Editors may prefer not to
commission subjective articles (for example, editorials
or non-systematic reviews) from authors with conflicts of interest. However, arguments can be made
that such authors are often well informed and have
interesting opinions. Strict policies preventing people
with conflicts of interest from publishing opinion
pieces may encourage authors to conceal relevant
interests, and may therefore be counter-productive.
Readers will benefit from transparency, including
knowing authors and contributors affiliations and
interests. Editors should strive to maintain transparent policies and procedures regarding authorship and
disclosure of conflicts of interest.
See Transparency, p. 1.
See Box 12.
See Flowchart 8 (p. 25) What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted
manuscript, Flowchart 9 (p. 26) What to do if a reader
suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published
article, and Flowchart 5 (p. 22) What to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Editorial independence
Decisions by editors about whether to publish individual items submitted to a journal should not be
influenced by pressure from the editors employer,
the journal owner or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of editorial independence should be set out in
the editors contract. Editors contracts at Blackwell
Publishing describe the principles of editorial independence.
10
Accuracy
Journal editors have a responsibility to ensure the
accuracy of the material they publish.
Journals should encourage authors and readers to
inform them if they discover errors in published
work.
Editors should publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data
or information presented in an article.
Corrections arising from errors within an article
(by authors or journals) should be distinguishable
from retractions and statements of concern relating
to misconduct (see Informing readers about research
and publication misconduct, p. 5).
Corrections should be included in indexing systems and linked to the original article wherever
possible.
See Box 9.
Academic debate
Journals should encourage academic debate.
Journals should encourage correspondence commenting on published items and should always invite
authors to respond to any correspondence before
publication. However, authors do not have a right to
veto unfavorable comments about their work and
they may choose not to respond to criticisms.
Neither peer-reviewer comments nor published
correspondence should contain personal attacks on
the authors. Editors should encourage peer reviewers
to criticize the work not the researcher and should
edit (or reject) letters containing personal or offensive statements.
Read Blackwell Publishing Copyright FAQs, particularly sections 1.21 [plagiarism (25)], 1.23 [dual publication (2)], 1.24 [libel, slander and obscenity (26)].
See Flowchart 5 (p. 22) What to do if you suspect
an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
11
12
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Committee on
Publication Ethics for the use of its flowcharts, and
the panel of 25 reviewers who reviewed this document during its development. Lise Baltzer (Blackwell
Publishing Asia), Caroline Black (Blackwell Publishing Ltd) and Allen Stevens (Blackwell Publishing
Ltd) provided advice and input during development
of these guidelines.
References
1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals:
Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. http://www.
ICMJE.org (accessed 23 October 2006).
2. Blackwell Publishing. Copyright FAQs Section 1.23 What is the
Situation Regarding Dual Publication?. http://www.blackwell
publishing.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp#1.23 (accessed 23 October 2006).
3. World Health Organization. The World Health Organization
Announces New Standards for Registration of All Human Medical
Research. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr25/
en/index.html (accessed 23 October 2006).
4. Office of Research Integrity. Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors. http://ori.dhhs.gov/
documents/masm_2000.pdf (accessed 23 October 2006).
5. Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines on Good Publication
and Code of Conduct. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/
guidelines (accessed 23 October 2006).
6. UK Panel for Research Integrity in Health and Biomedical Sciences. http://www.ukrio.org.uk/home/index.cfm (accessed 23 October 2006).
7. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://
www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed 23 October 2006).
8. US Food and Drug Administration. Good Clinical Practice in FDAregulated Clinical Trials. http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp/default.htm
(accessed 23 October 2006).
9. Medicines Research Council. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice
in Clinical Trials. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/
index.htm?dMRC002416 (accessed 24 October 2006).
10. Blackwell Publishing. Copyright FAQs Section 1.22 What is the
Situation
Regarding
Retractions?.
http://www.blackwell
publishing.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp#1.22 (accessed 23 October 2006).
11. Office of Research Integrity/Yale University. Ethics of Peer Review:
A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers. http://ori.hhs.gov/education/
products/yale/ (accessed 23 October 2006).
12. Horton R. Conflicts of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or
obsession? Lancet 1997; 349: 11123.
13. Smith R. Conflict of interest and the BMJ. BMJ 1994; 308: 45.
14. Council of Science Editors. White Paper on Promoting Integrity
in Scientific Journal Publications. http://www.councilscience
editors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/2-5_relations.cfm (accessed
24 October 2006).
15. Committee on Publication Ethics. Cases. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/cases (accessed 24 October 2006).
16. World Association of Medical Editors. WAME Policy Statements.
http://www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm (accessed 24 October 2006).
17. Good Publication Practice for Pharmaceutical Companies. http://
www.gpp-guidelines.org/ (accessed 24 October 2006).
Appendix. Flowcharts
Flowchart 1a from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Changes in authorship
(a) Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship
Proceed with
review/publication
13
14
Proceed with
review/publication
Redrawn for Committee on Publication Ethics by Blackwell Publishing
2006 Committee on Publication Ethics
Changes in authorship
(c) Request for addition of extra author after publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship
Publish correction
Author(s) gives
acceptable reason
for change
Publish correction
Other authors
submit response
Other authors do
not wish to respond
If author insists on
removal of name and
other authors agree,
then consider publishing
correction
15
16
Author responds
No significant
overlap
Discuss with
reviewer
Proceed
with review
No response
Inform reviewer of
outcome/action
Attempt to contact all other
authors (check
Medline/Google for emails)
Unsatisfactory
explanation/admits
guilt
Satisfactory
explanation (honest
error/journal
instructions
unclear/very junior
researcher)
Write to author (all authors if
possible) rejecting submission,
explaining position and expected
future behavior
Consider informing
authors superior
and/or person
responsible for
research governance
No response
Inform author(s)
of your action
If no response,
keep contacting
institution every
36 months
Inform reviewer of
outcome/action
Author responds
Unsatisfactory
explanation/admits
guilt
No response
Satisfactory
explanation (honest
error/journal
instructions
unclear/very junior
researcher)
Consider publishing statement
of redundant publication or
retraction
Inform editor of other journal
involved
Consider informing
authors superior
and/or person
responsible for
research governance
Inform reader of
outcome/action
No response
Inform author(s)
of your action
If no response,
keep contacting
institution every
36 months
Inform reader of
outcome/action
17
18
Author replies
Unsatisfactory
answer/
admits guilt
No response
Satisfactory
explanation
No response
Author replies
No response
Apologize to author, inform
reviewer(s) of outcome
Proceed with peer-review
if appropriate
Contact authors
institution(s)
requesting an
investigation
Author cleared
Author
found guilty
Reject
Inform reviewer of
outcome
Author replies
No response
No response
Author replies
Unsatisfactory
answer/admits guilt
Satisfactory
explanation
Apologize to author
Publish correction if necessary
(e.g. if an honest error has
been detected)
Inform reader of outcome
Contact authors
institution
requesting an
investigation
No response
Author(s) guilty
of fabrication
Publish
retraction
Author(s) found
not guilty
Apologize to author(s)
Publish expression
of concern
Inform reader of
outcome
19
20
Author responds
No problem
Discuss with
reviewer
No response
Unsatisfactory
explanation/admits
guilt
Satisfactory
explanation (honest
error/journal
instructions
unclear/very junior
researcher)
Write to author (all authors if
possible) rejecting submission,
explaining position and expected
future behavior
Consider informing
authors superior and/
or person responsible
for research governance
and/or potential victim
Redundancy
(i.e. copying
from authors
own work)
see flowcharts
on redundancy
No response
Inform author(s)
of your action
If no response, keep
contacting institution
every 36 months
If no resolution, consider
contacting other
authorities, e.g. ORI in
US, GMC in UK
Inform reviewer of
outcome/action
Author responds
No response
Unsatisfactory
explanation/
admits guilt
Contact all
authors and tell
them what you
plan to do
Satisfactory
explanation (honest
error/journal
instructions
unclear/very junior
researcher)
Consider informing
authors superior
and/or person
responsible for
research governance
at authors institution
No response
Inform author(s)
of your action
If no response, keep
contacting institution
every 36 months
If no resolution, consider
contacting other
authorities, e.g. ORI in
US, GMC in UK
21
22
Author(s) supplies
relevant details
Satisfactory answer
Apologize and
continue review
process
Issue resolved
satisfactory
No/unsatisfactory
response
Contact institution at 36
monthly intervals, seeking
conclusion of investigation
No/unsatisfactory
response
Author appeals
Author appeals
Reject appeal
Reconsider decision* in
light of reviewers
comments
23
24
Complainant not
satisfied with response
Complainant satisfied
with response
Complainant not
satisfied with response
Complainant satisfied
with response
Author(s) supplies
relevant details
25
26
Author(s) supplies
relevant details