“…Nevertheless, this survey may be a starting point for more transparency on how misconduct policies are implemented by journals. Just as transparent criteria for authorship are key in guaranteeing untainted scientific investigation and aid readers to decide the type of contribution made by each author [37], journals that fail to post explicit policies on misconduct are doing science a disservice because, without unequivocal support from scientific journals, a reduction in fraudulent research conduct is unlikely.…”
BackgroundIt is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.ResultsOf 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.ConclusionsOnly a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.
“…Nevertheless, this survey may be a starting point for more transparency on how misconduct policies are implemented by journals. Just as transparent criteria for authorship are key in guaranteeing untainted scientific investigation and aid readers to decide the type of contribution made by each author [37], journals that fail to post explicit policies on misconduct are doing science a disservice because, without unequivocal support from scientific journals, a reduction in fraudulent research conduct is unlikely.…”
BackgroundIt is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.ResultsOf 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.ConclusionsOnly a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.
“…7 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors lists four criteria for authorship: (1) ''substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work'' AND (2) ''drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content'' AND (3) ''final approval of the version to be published'' AND (4) ''agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.'' 8 ''Courtesy authorship'' is unacceptable and unethical and should be avoided.…”
Section: Table 2 Common Reasons For Rejection Of Manuscriptsmentioning
Publication of your research represents the culmination of your scientific activities. The key to getting manuscripts accepted is to make them understandable and informative so that your colleagues will read and benefit from them. We describe key criteria for acceptance of manuscripts and outline a multi-step process for writing the manuscript. The likelihood that a manuscript will be accepted by a major journal is significantly increased if the manuscript is written in polished and fluent scientific English. Although scientific quality is the most important consideration, clear and concise writing often makes the difference between acceptance and rejection. As with any skill, efficient writing of high-quality manuscripts comes with experience and repetition. It is very uncommon for a manuscript to be accepted as submitted to a journal. Thoughtful and respectful responses to the journal reviewers' comments are critical. Success in scientific writing, as in surgery, is dependent on effort, repetition, and commitment. The transfer of knowledge through a well-written publication in a high-quality medical journal will have an impact not only in your own institution and country, but also throughout the world.Publication of a scientific manuscript is the ultimate and arguably one of the most important components of research.1 Through publication of a scientific manuscript, your knowledge and experience become citable science in the form of novel information transmitted to physicians and scientists for current and future generations. Writing manuscripts can be a rewarding and satisfying creative process, and publication of manuscripts confers substantial benefits to academic surgeons.3 Publications in high-quality journals lend credibility to your research (due to the rigorous peer review of high-quality journals and the intense competition for the limited publication space in such journals) and are highly valued evidence of scholarship by promotion and tenure committees. A strong track record of publications carries significant influence in the allocation of grants.For trainees and surgeons early in their careers, writing manuscripts can be a valuable learning experience. As with any skill, efficient writing of high-quality manuscripts comes with experience and repetition. In this article, we offer suggestions to speed the learning process for trainees and early-career surgeons. This advice is relevant not only for manuscripts submitted to Annals of Surgical Oncology, for which most of us serve as editorial leaders, but also for clinical research manuscripts in general.
“…If a professional writer has been employed, this must be stated. There should be no ‘honorary authors’ or ‘guest authors’ – those whose names are added out of courtesy but who have not contributed significantly.“Including authors who do not meet authorship criteria dilutes the merits of other authors and may lead to inappropriate academic advancement and have a corrupting and discouraging influence on research”.Bosch et al ()…”
Section: Writing a Scientific Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…"Including authors who do not meet authorship criteria dilutes the merits of other authors and may lead to inappropriate academic advancement and have a corrupting and discouraging influence on research". Bosch et al (2012) It is, however, important to include all those whose contribution to the work was crucial. If the main point of a publication is a cytogenetic or molecular genetic result or a radiological or histological observation, the person responsible should be an author.…”
Writing scientific papers is a skill required by all haematologists. Many also need to be able to referee papers submitted to journals. These skills are not often formally taught and as a result may not be done well. We have reviewed published evidence of errors in these processes. Such errors may be ethical, scientific or linguistic, or may result from a lack of understanding of the processes. The objective of the review is, by highlighting errors, to help writers and referees to avoid them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
