Retos de las Publicaciones en el S. XXI: El plagio...

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


Laura Hausmann, PhD/MBA

Managing Editor, Journal of Neurochemistry

3

Part 1.

Handling Ethics –

An Editorial Office Perspective


- Published by the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN)

- About 900 submissions per year (original research, Reviews)

4


JNeurochem publishes in the following areas:


“[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

http://www.sfn.org/News-and-Calendar/Neuroscience-Quarterly/Spring-2015/Message-from-the-President


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


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


Scientific Misconduct

• Fake authorship, fake reviewers

• Data and image manipulation

• Plagiarism

9


The Temptation of Data Manipulation

10


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

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/22/hiv-vaccine-researcher-who-confessed-to-fraud-files-appeal-of-57-month-prison-sentence/


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


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.


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

https://ori.hhs.gov/

http://www.enrio.eu/


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


JNeurochem faced a case of fake reviewer accounts, using email addresses such as NAME,[email protected]

16

(covered in the

shown Review article)


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

http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html


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


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


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


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

https://pubpeer.com/publications/5065038F5B318B398FCE6FE0E61CE1

http://imgur.com/fWMavJu


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


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.

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/28/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/

http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/04/nature-retracts-paper-six-years-after-it-was-flagged-for-fraud/


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


• 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


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


Plagiarism Checks

28


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


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

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/03/does-publicly-questioning-papers-lead-to-more-corrections-and-retractions/


Licenses & Copyright

o Re-usage of material

o Accessibility to material

o Proper referencing

31


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

http://www.nih.gov/about/reporting-preclinical-research.htm


Dr. Natalia Ortuzar

Associate Editorial Director, North America

Editorial Management, John Wiley & Sons

33

Part 2.

A Publisher’s Perspective on

Ethics and Integrity


Outline1. Ethics Governance and Publisher Resources

2. Literature Integrity and Reproducibility


Ethics Governance &

Publisher Resources


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.


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.


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



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



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:


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.


Committee on Publication Ethics


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



Chris Graf

Director, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics, Wiley

Co-Chair, COPE



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.



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.


Available Tools


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.

https://www.resis-srl.com/


Literature Integrity &

Reproducibility


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



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).


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


http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/27/harvard-teaching-hospital-pay-10-million-settle-research-misconduct-allegations/


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.


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

http://www.force11.org/group/resource-identification-initiative


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


Bandrowski, et al. ”The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing”,Brain and Behavior, 2016; 6(1), e00417; DOI: 10.1002/brb3.417

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.417


Closing Remarks


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


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

https://t.co/7J2Z3fzHR0


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”)


Thank you for your kind attention!

Email questions to

Dra. Laura Hausmann [email protected]

Dra. Natalia Ortuzar [email protected]

or stop by the Wiley booth after this presentation.


“Como publicar en una revista científica del área de bilogía y química”

Calling all early career researchers!

sala uno | Hoy, 17:00–18:30

Retos de las Publicaciones en el S. XXI: El plagio...

Documents

Transcript of Retos de las Publicaciones en el S. XXI: El plagio...