Karin Lasthuizen’s Post

In the research process, ethical lapses can undermine the credibility of the research, harm participants, and damage the researcher's reputation. In this series of posts, we are listing key ethical considerations and how to address them. Citations. When drawing on the work of others, it is essential to give credit. This includes direct quotations, paraphrased ideas, and data from other studies. In addition, when it comes to collaborative research, it is important to clearly define contributions and ensure that all participants receive appropriate recognition. Authorship disputes can arise if these issues are not addressed early on in the research process. Other conflicts of interest can come up when researchers have financial, personal, or professional interests that could influence their work. It's important to identify and disclose any potential conflicts. For instance, researchers should disclose who is funding their research and whether there are any potential biases associated with this funding. Additionally, researchers must report their findings objectively, regardless of any personal or financial interests. If a conflict of interest is present, it is essential to be transparent about it and take the required steps to mitigate its impact on the research.

Obtaining consent from all authors before submitting a research paper is a crucial step in maintaining ethical standards and fostering collaboration. Here are the key reasons why it's important: First, consent ensures that all authors agree on the paper’s content and findings. This agreement helps maintain research integrity and prevents disputes over authorship or interpretation of results. Second, it establishes accountability. When all authors consent, they collectively take responsibility for the research, ensuring accuracy and reliability. Third, consent aligns expectations on authorship order and contributions. Clear discussions about roles prevent misunderstandings and conflicts later. Once the paper is accepted, final approval from all authors is equally important. This confirms that everyone is satisfied with the final version, verifies correct authorship and affiliations, and signals to the journal that the manuscript is ready for publication. In summary, obtaining consent before submission promotes accountability, aligns expectations, and ensures collaboration. Final approval after acceptance further upholds ethical standards and prepares the research for publication. These steps foster a positive and professional research environment.

Insights from the UKRIO Roundtable on Authorship in Research Publications I am currently attending a UKRIO roundtable on authorship in research publications. Initially, I joined to clarify some smaller questions about unwritten conventions, such as the order of authors on papers. For example, in some disciplines, it’s clear that the supervisor or someone with the 'second biggest role' is expected to be listed last, while in others, the order reflects contributions directly (1st = biggest contribution, 2nd = second biggest, etc.). However, what I’ve learned is that authorship challenges go far beyond these nuances, especially in fields like the natural sciences or research involving extensive lab work. Offices for Research Integrity in institutions are grappling with complex issues, from disputes over contributions to ensuring fair practices. On a positive note, it was encouraging to hear that UKRIO is working on developing a guidance document—a much-needed resource to offer consistent guidelines across disciplines and institutions. This could be a game-changer in promoting clarity, fairness, and integrity in research authorship. Kudos to UKRIO for facilitating these critical conversations and to all the participants for sharing their insights. Authorship is more than just a list of names—it’s about ethics, recognition, and the integrity of research itself. Have you encountered challenges or interesting practices related to authorship in your field? I'd love to hear your thoughts! 👇 #ResearchIntegrity #UKRIO #Authorship #ResearchCollaboration

Exciting developments in scientific publishing highlight the importance of maintaining ethical standards: https://lnkd.in/eRDfcfrK #EthicalPublishing #ResearchIntegrity #InsightEditingLondon

African Journal of Business Ethics 18(1) has just been published. In the editorial, Professor Neil Eccles and I argue how the chase for global rankings in higher education presents a problem for African journals, with top African scholars typically seeking out top international journals (due to ranking criteria). Three peer-reviewed papers have been published in this issue: Ms Mangaleni Hlatywayo and Professor Freda van der Walt examine the role of workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership in promoting ethical behaviour in the South African small business environment. Dr Aliska Olivier, Dr Antje Hargarter and Professor Gary van Vuuren have conducted an empirical study of regulatory compliance in South African banks, emphasising the impact of regulatory fines on the performance of listed financial institutions. Ms Judith King, Professor Bernhard Gaede and Ms Noluthando Ndlovu gathered and analysed relevant literature from five electronic databases to determine whether a communitarian ethic can strengthen corporate governance in support of public health. The full issue is available here: https://lnkd.in/dmct6DYs The African Journal of Business Ethics values and acknowledges all of the academics and industry experts who kindly participated in the peer review process for this edition.

📌 Need help navigating the journal submission process? ⚡ We've got you covered! Here are some common questions and answers: Q1: What is the submission fee? A: We have an APC of $198. Q2: How long is the review process? A: It takes around 2-3 weeks. Q3: What are the ethical guidelines? A: Link to our ethical guidelines: https://lnkd.in/gVtYhzMa Q4: Can I submit my manuscript to multiple journals at once? A: No, you generally cannot submit your manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously. This practice is considered unethical and can lead to serious consequences. 💡 For more detailed information and to submit your manuscript, visit our website: https://lnkd.in/fR_giww Feel free to let us know if you have any other questions.

Why Do Some Reviewers Ask Authors to Cite Their Own Work? 1- Building Knowledge or Boosting Metrics? In an ideal world, citations are added to enrich a paper's scientific context. However, if a citation request feels unsubstantiated, it raises questions about motivations—does it serve the research or only citation metrics? 2- Potential Bias in Peer Review: The peer review system should assess work on its scientific merit. When reviewers promote their own work without clear relevance, this can undermine the integrity of this process. 3- Academic Integrity: Adding citations to appease reviewers can compromise an author’s work, as they may feel pressured to include sources that don’t align with their research. As a community, let’s advocate for ethical practices in peer review. Authors should be empowered to respectfully question citation requests, and reviewers should be mindful of their influence. Let's focus on advancing knowledge and supporting work on its merit.

Our new webinar, "Promoting Healthy Authorship Dynamics in Research Teams," discusses the role institutions can play in supporting ethical authorship practices and resolving authorship disputes. You can now add this webinar to your organization's subscription with our All Access Webinar Package or purchase it as an individual learner. This webinar was presented by Elise Demeter, PhD and Lisa M. Rasmussen. https://loom.ly/yAdukeY #HealthyAuthorship

Matters Arising!!! Dear colleagues, I am writing to express our deep concern over the recent unilateral retraction of your articles by Hindawi. This action, which is considered unprofessional and unethical, has serious implications for the dignity and future careers of university researchers and all the authors. Over the past year, Hindawi has retracted more than 10,000 papers, and it seems this process is set to continue. What is particularly troubling is that Hindawi has been unresponsive to legitimate appeals, declaring their decision as final without providing clear reasons in the retraction letter. This lack of transparency leaves authors in the dark, especially since they have no role in introducing referees or editors during the submission process, absolving them from any intentional manipulation of peer review process. The retraction notification issued by the publisher is puzzling due to the absence of a stated reason. If there is an issue with the peer review process, the responsibility lies with the journal, editor, and publisher, not the authors. Authors should not have to pay such a heavy price for faults that are not their own. It appears that Hindawi’s policies have disregarded the rights of authors in the retraction process, and they should be held accountable for the reputational damage inflicted on all authors involved. Many academic appointments, promotions, scholarships, and even VISA and residency issues are based on the CVs of authors, their articles, and citations. These baseless retractions could jeopardize the opportunities of many researchers who have used their articles for such purposes. It is evident that the publisher has acted in a completely unprofessional manner, ignoring all COPE principles, including contacting authors, allowing them the right to explain, and considering other options like correction or expression of concern rather than destructive retraction (https://lnkd.in/ddccWUcR). This decision was made abruptly, without any prior information or correspondence, and without stating the reasons. The general reason provided pertains to the publisher and the journal itself, and has nothing to do with the authors. The authors have not been given the right to protest, which is a clear violation of their rights. If the publisher/journal is facing issues with delisting from the Web of Science, the reaction should not come at the expense of the authors’ reputation. I am wondering if you also share same concerns, and if we can discuss ways to defend our rights (e.g. legally or via social media, else)? Thank you for your attention to this matter and hoping for an effective collaboration to achieve justice and defend the rights of the authors. Amirhossein Sahebkar, Pharm.D, Ph.D, Fellowship Professor of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology