Peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest

Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting

Ethical research follows numerous rules and regulations to ensure that all human subjects are protected during the collection and dissemination of research outcomes. Nevertheless, there is often a critical distinction drawn between human subjects research and non-human subjects research (NHSR). The latter can also be described as non-research activities, which typically reduces any oversight even if human subjects are involved. Despite the need to conduct ethical NHSR or non-research activities in an applied setting, there are several ways this determination can be used to circumvent regulatory oversight. In particular, the problem arises because one or more of several key functions become conflated in an applied setting, whereas they would be compartmentalized and independent in controlled or experimental settings. These functions include: 1) ethical oversight; 2) funding; 3) execution; and 4) peer review. The current discussion outlines how NHSR in an applied setting can allow these functions to overlap, and how personnel might stretch the boundaries of ethical conduct even while following existing regulations. As such, the goal is to guide future practices when conducting or reviewing NHSR in an applied setting so that unethical practices do not bias the results.

Peer review ethics in Iranian LIS scholarly journals: a comparison between views of reviewers and authors

Peer review is one of the most efficient ways to ensure the quality of papers for possible publication in scholarly journals. However, the process of peer review is not free of bias and disorders. Many reviewers are unaware of how their attitudes towards the evaluation of scholarly papers may violate Peer Review Ethics (PRE). This paper attempts to analyze the different ethical issues influencing the job of reviewing. The research sample for this study included 7 Iranian library and information journals, 124 Iranian peer reviewers, and 34 authors. Peer reviewers and authors were asked to evaluate the most important ethical elements of peer review in Iranian LIS journals through two different questionnaires based on Rajabali Beglou et al. (2019) research. Findings showed that there was no difference among authors and reviewers in terms of gender in most PRE elements. Also, the level of experience of the authors was not significant in terms of understanding and acceptance of the PRE among reviewers and authors. However, review experiences regarding some PRE elements were significant in respondents’ viewpoints. The experiences reviewers had already gained were influential on their views about PRE. In addition, results showed that there were significant differences among reviewers and authors about the PRE elements in LIS journals. Authorship experiences had not effect on the PRE elements and the dual role of peer reviewing and authorship had no impact on their views.

Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Despite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being 'unscientific'. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders-namely authors, editors and peer reviewers-communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors' point of view.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.

METHODS

After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available.

RESULTS

Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.

Avoid Ethical Misconduct in Manuscript Preparation

In order for nurses and other health care professionals to make important contributions to the literature, there must be an awareness of the many areas where unintentional ethical conflicts can arise. Leading ethical concerns include plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship standards, bias, and conflicts of interest. Although many sources are available on the variety of ethical concerns, this article takes the position to identify the area of concern and describe why it is an ethical violation. Solutions are posed for resolving the conflict, including why medical librarians can help in the publishing process.

Mentoring Clinical Nurses to Write for Publication: Strategies for Success

: Clinical nurses often find writing a challenge, but it's important to disseminate clinical practice initiatives that result in notable patient outcomes. Nurses have a responsibility to share what they do to improve patient care. The increased emphasis on the development and evaluation of evidence-based practice has made it necessary for nurses to share best practices that are associated with improved patient outcomes. We developed a six-month Writing for Publication workshop series designed to teach clinical nurses about the writing process and mentor them through the stages of preparing a manuscript to submit for publication. This successful program helped novice nurse authors become published professionals and had a great impact on our organization.

Ethical issues faced by nursing editors

This study reports on ethical issues faced by editors of nursing journals, a topic which has not appeared in the nursing literature. A survey of nursing editors (n = 88)was conducted via e-mail; this article is the content analysis of survey questions about ethics. Eight categories of ethical issues emerged: problems with society/association/publisher; decisions about inflammatory submissions; informed consent or IRB issues; conflicts of interest; advertising pressures; duplicate publications and/or plagiarism; difficult interactions with authors; and authorship. Some issues were similar to those published about medical editors; however, others were unique. This study can assist authors to better understand some of the ethical issues in publishing, can help editors to view their issues in the context of what others experience, and can assist societies and publishers to work toward avoiding these ethical issues in the future. Professional discussions about ethics in nursing publications should be the subject of ongoing research and scientific inquiry.

Selected ethical issues in research and publication: perceptions of health education faculty

A national random sample of 195 university health education faculty at graduate degree-granting programs completed a 31-item survey with regard to their perceptions of ethical issues in research and publishing. Most respondents were male (57%), tenured (75%), had graduate faculty status (92%), had presented original research at conferences (85%), and had published articles in health education journals (89%). Faculty members were requested to assess whether 21 scenarios dealing with ethical issues in research and publishing were ethical, unethical, questionable, or not an ethical issue. Of the scenarios, 3 were considered ethical and 7 unethical by the majority of respondents. The perceptions of how ethical the remaining 11 scenarios were varied considerably. Perceptions of the ethical scenarios did not differ among respondents by sex, academic rank, years taught as a faculty member, whether the department taught units/classes on research ethics, or whether the respondents were from doctoral-level versus master's-level programs.

Graduate student-faculty collaboration in research and publication

The nursing profession advocates development of theoretical knowledge as a basis for nursing practice and promotes preparation of graduate students as nursing scholars. This study explored the influence of selected factors on the publishing efforts of student authors who published in the Western Journal of Nursing Research during a 5-year period. Assignments, particularly for a dissertation, provided a significant impetus for publishing. Self-selection of a topic of interest also was an important factor. Approximately one third of the student authors had collaborated with faculty as coauthors. Graduate students make a significant contribution to the creation and dissemination of nursing knowledge. The influence of collaboration with faculty, the defining elements of collaborative mentorship, and inherent ethical issues should be investigated in future studies.

Ethical issues in publication of research

We often think of research ethics mostly in connection with the processes of intervention, data collection, and analysis, but ethics does not stop there. The process of preparing publications involves a number of ethical considerations, including continued protection of the rights of human subjects; reporting findings truthfully, accurately, and completely and using one's own words to do so, or appropriately citing the work of others; and ensuring that authorship credit and acknowledgments accurately reflect the contributions of others. No foolproof way exists to ensure that only ethical publications see print; however, including content on publication ethics in all research courses, publishing clear policies related to ethical expectations in journals, and engaging in discussion of these issues with colleagues are a good start toward that goal.