Sofia Fields Editorial Services’ Post

These new COPE guidelines underline the importance of collaboration between research institutions and journals in maintaining research and publication integrity. These excellent guidelines offer recommendations on points of contact, information sharing, and communication. They also address potential misconduct involving multiple journals or institutions and the correction of the scholarly record. https://lnkd.in/epiJExQg #researchintegrity #scholarlypublishing #academicpublishing #researchethics #guidelines

DUPLICATE PUBLICATION UNCOVERED IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS Discover how concerns over duplicate publication in academic research have raised questions about transparency and integrity. Learn about the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations and the importance of upholding standards to maintain the integrity of scholarly research. https://lnkd.in/dYvEkMPg

Elite researchers in China say they had ‘no choice’ but commit research misconduct to publish more. Is this a new reality? What reforms can be introduced by Academic Publishing institutions and boards to improve trust factor in Scientific publishing. #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicPublishing #ResearchIntegrityReforms

"Since 22 November, Elsevier has retracted 22 papers in STOTEN, a number that’s set to grow. The retraction notices, which are nearly identical, all say Elsevier’s Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics team determined that one or more of the reviews for each paper were “fictitious,” written under the name of known scientists without their knowledge." "Fake peer reviews have become an increasingly familiar type of academic fraud. Many journals invite authors to submit names of possible reviewers along with their manuscript. Authors can abuse this system by suggesting real scientists with relevant expertise but supplying fake email addresses they have created or have access to. If the journal editors accept the suggestions without vetting the email, authors can write and submit favorable reviews of their own paper, increasing the chances of publication."

Authorship refers to the person or persons involved in the production of a manuscript. It’s used to designate credit for specific work completed on a manuscript. Here, MDPI scientific officer, Dr Michael O’Sullivan, advises on frequently asked questions regarding authorship. Learn more: https://brnw.ch/21wHtXn

Academic misconduct, especially in management research, is an open secret (I have little experience about other streams, so cannot comment). It has different forms too. Many prolific authors and editors scratch each others back and make sure their paper goes through with minimal barrier. This is particularly true for ABS3/2 journals and not so much in ABS4 (although there are some exceptions).This is also particularly true in certain domains of management. If a cartle's paper face less barrier, it automatically creates stronger barrier for people outside the cartle, given the space constraints in journal issues. As a reviewer, I have also experienced requests from associate editors to take "special care" to papers submitted by prolific authors. I have been asked by a co-author prolific researcher to change the item statements after the data was collected. We discontinued our association at that very point. I remember asking an EIC point-blank in an open forum what he is doing as an EIC to tackle these issues. He did not expect such a question and had no concrete answer too. If your productivity is an outlier, you will attract attention. And, in such a case, you must express the highest degree of ethics as you cannot have margin of error. And if you are foul-mouthed and aggressive to somebody who is questioning, it actually gives a different signal. After all, we all know who has "বড় গলা". We are scared to talk about this as it can create potential backlash. Such backlash may have minimal effect on the mid-level academics like me as we have already gained some bit of experience, but it can effect our coauthor PhD students as they are just starting their journey. If they face unnecessary barriers because we are facing backlash, it may not be good for them. Thinking all these, we refrain from talking. But somebody needs to 🔔 the 🐈.

On how to manage public academic misconduct charges (or posting to social media makes it that much harder for the acusser). Sometimes, accusations of misconduct spill out from private conversations to public social media forums. Often, the public, social media, dialogue gets ugly. BC public accusations can cost people their livelihood, the stakes of these conversations are not small. And. People don't forget. Nor. Do their friends. Nor. Does the public record. You can not pull down a written social media accusattion with ease. So what to expect? What to think about? If you post an accusation. If you lodge the complaint, you must: 1. Be sure this is not a suspicion. You need to have evidence. I have investigated accusations in various roles. Mostly, there was neither smoke nor fire. So, I could do nothing. Absent evidence, it puts the "investigator" in a tough spot. 2. Be prepared for trouble. If you present evidence, you can't predicd how the accused will fight back - in public or private. You can't predict if they will "own the mistake" or deny "the mistake" & lash out. So be prepared for public & private attacks. 3. Be prepared for attacks from unexpected angles. If you make the accusation public, you will find the accused have friends. The accused may not want the optics of tackling you head on. So, their friends may not have the reluctance. Be prepared for attacks from all angles. 4. Be beyond reproach. I have seen the accused dredge up every rumor or immature act of an accuser as part of their defense. Sometimes, they will lay a coutnercharge. If you have dirt, or personal issues you don't want aired in public, consider a quieter approach, than a social media post, to laying the charge of misconduct. 5. Consider laying the charge in a less public way. Rather than going public, keep it private. Report the issue to the journal editor, your professional association, or to the relevant school. This will usually trigger a process, designed to protect you & the accused. If there is smoke & fire, their response will be measured & they will take it public if it needs to be. If you take this route, know that, your responsibility to behave ethically, will be discharged, & you may be able to rest easier. It is also less damaging to you, bc the editor, journal, institution should have the accusation & investigation cofidentially. But there is still risk for you ... bc some lips are loose. So. Be aware. That #whistleblowing, which is what reporting #academic misconduct is, often results in harm to the accused, & often, to the accuser. Sometimes, more harm to the accuser than the accused. So what to do? Approach laying public charges of #misconduct with caution, know it's a serious matter, to you & to the accused, & only do it when you have a) evidence & b) are prepared to take the heat. And if you do have evidence, know that, I will support you 100% Best of luck.

As a scientist from China, I know the situation very much. I have to say it is not black or white. In high ranking universities, scientists trying their best to publish their papers on high-impact journals, like CNS (Cell Nature, Science). However, for researchers from normal universities, hospitals, most researchers don't have too much training on writing, especially for older generations. So the pressure of publishing is a burden on them, they have to find some ways to publish paper in order to be promoted. #researchintegrity #chinaresearch

https://lnkd.in/d7cTh6N According to the #COPE, whistleblowers can anonymously report any #misconduct made by authors to journals and publishers. However, I would like to point out that this protection can also be #misused, as it applies to those who provide #false information. The rules and policies for #whistleblowers have some deficits that need to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent any wrongdoings. Certain whistleblowers' real intentions and ulterior motives remain unclear, and they have significant power over researchers' careers. This can be problematic, especially if they contact journals freely and anonymously for motives like revenge, personal gain, or disputes. The lack of laws concerning this issue is one of the main reasons behind the false notes, concerns, and critiques that journals receive, causing a waste of time for both the journal and the authors and unfairly harming their reputation and careers. Consider that the COPE was established in 1997 and provided the first codes of conduct since 2003. Thus, it is unsurprising that COPE rules must be revised and updated timely.

"Where do I publish?" This is a critical question in today’s complex research publishing landscape. Journal evaluation tools for researchers, like those on the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) Think Check Submit list, become more important. Institutions and national bodies may also want to produce their own lists to help researchers. However, those lists must be predicated on informed researcher choice and on open criteria and objective processes. Without this foundation, even the best intentions can lead to unintended consequences. The recent decision of the Finnish publication forum, Julkaisufoorumi (JUFO), to downgrade so-called 'grey area' journals appears to disregard objectivity, unfairly ignoring the experience and judgement of researchers, as well as its own evaluation criteria. Our chief executive editor Frederick Fenter discusses the need to apply scientific rigour, transparency, and accountability to scholarly journal assessment in the latest LSE Impact Blog ⬇️ https://fro.ntiers.in/bjP2