Ethical issues in biomedical publications

Abstract

Peer reviewed biomedical journals are expected to publish accurate and important information. In the process, numerous ethical issues may arise from within both the editorial and the research communities. This article focuses on four general ethical issues: authorship, peer review, duplicate or repetitive publication, and conflict of interest. Issues of authorship include multiple authorship, misconduct among co-authors, guest and honorary authorship, order of authorship, and credit for those not qualifying for authorship. Peer review attempts to ensure that what is published is valid. Ethical issues in peer review include confidentiality of the manuscript, potential editor and reviewer bias, and conflict of interest on the part of the reviewer. Duplicate or repetitive publication, in which the same information is reported two or more times, can damage a journal's reputation for publishing new and important information and can waste its re-sources. Conflicts of interest, in which financial and personal considerations may affect the investigator's personal judgment, can seriously damage the integrity of the author and of the journal. Increased awareness of these ethical issues should stimulate all those involved in the field to take an active role in promulgating and enforcing the highest ethical standards in biomedical publications.

Ethical issues in instructions to authors of journals in oral-craniomaxillofacial/facial plastic surgery and related specialities

“…Taken together, it is essential that OCMeFPS journals amend instructions to authors, have appropriate oversight of ethical breaches, and implement 'must have' measures as a standard in surgical peer-review publishing. Details on research and publication ethics and relevant journal's mechanisms were previously reviewed by some of us (Pitak-Arnnop et al, 2008, 2009a and other authors (Kempers, 2002;Atlas, 2003;Gilbert and Denison, 2003;Gollogly and Momen, 2006;Roberts, 2009). …”

“…It includes fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, improper data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by an independent research ethics committee and subject's informed consent, inappropriate authorship, duplicated, fragmented or overlapping publications, and undeclared conflicts of interest (Kempers, 2002;Gilbert and Denison, 2003;Gollogly and Momen, 2006;PitakArnnop et al, 2008;Roberts, 2009). Many causative factors contribute to these ethical hurdles: inadequate research experience, bias from career self-interest or financial gains, ignorance about research and publication ethics, or a combination of these (Pitak-Arnnop et al, 2008;Roberts, 2009 (Markman and Markman, 2007;Rohrich, 2007;Rice, 2008).…”

Review article: Medical education research: an overview of methods

“…One strategy to prevent team conflicts is to determine authorship and contributions at an early stage of the project, and perhaps even to sign a contract. [29][30][31] If the researcher lacks experience in medical education research, approaching experienced colleagues for advice and assistance should be considered. Novices should not hesitate to contact their ''academic idol''.…”

Authorship: why not just toss a coin?

“…A particularly serious form of ghost authorship is termed "denial of authorship" (25,27). The most typical example of this involves individuals who participate in generating data for what they presume is a legitimate scientific collaboration.…”