Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher's perspective

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: Update 2023

The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) aims to publish articles with relevance to wasting disorders and illnesses of the muscle in the broadest sense. In order to avoid publication of inappropriate articles and to avoid protracted disputes, the Editors have established ethical guidelines that detail a number of regulations to be fulfilled prior to submission to the journal. This article updates the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in JCSM and its daughter journal JCSM Rapid Communication. We require the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, to certify adherence to the following principles: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in the journal; Each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; All authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; All relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; All authors certify that they will submit the original source data to the editorial office upon request; Authors who have used artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies need to provide a written statement - as part of the manuscript - that details the use of the respective technology; none of the aforementioned technologies can be listed as an author; The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of the journal as a valid publication only as long as all statements in these guidelines remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Dietary Pattern or Weight Loss: Which One Is More Important to Reduce Disease Activity Score in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Randomized Feeding Trial

Objectives

Herein, disease activity score 28 (DAS 28) was compared between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving the Mediterranean dietary pattern (MD) and low-fat diet. Subjects/Methods. Overweight and obese RA patients aged 15-75 y participated in this randomized feeding trial. Participants were randomized to MD (n = 51) and low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (n = 53) for 12 weeks. The control group followed their regular diet (n = 50). Participants completed the form of tender and swollen joint counts before the study enrollment and after 12 weeks to compute DAS 28.

Results

Weight loss was not statistically significant between the MD and LF-HC groups. DAS 28 significantly decreased in MD compared to the LF-HC group (p=0.02) and controls (p=0.001). Adjusting for the baseline variables, MD reduced DAS 28 by 76% (95% CI = -0.45, -0.2; p=0.03) after 12 weeks of intervention. The baseline serum ESR level showed 99.8% effect on DAS 28 score at the end (95% CI = 0.014, 0.035; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The MD showed beneficial effects on DAS 28 compared to the LF-HC diet in patients with RA, regardless of weight loss. It is a better dietary choice for pain reduction in patients with RA. The trial is registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20200929048876N2).

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2021

The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) aims to publish articles with relevance to wasting disorders and illnesses of the muscle in the broadest sense. In order to avoid publication of inappropriate articles and to avoid protracted disputes, the Editors have established ethical guidelines that detail a number of regulations to be fulfilled prior to submission to the journal. This article updates the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in JCSM and its two daughter journals JCSM Rapid Communication and JCSM Clinical Reports. We require the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, to certify adherence to the following principles: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in the journal; Each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication; No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; All authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; All relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; All authors certify that they will submit the original source data to the editorial office upon request; The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of the journal as a valid publication only as long as all statements in these guidelines remain true; If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Publication Ethics

Publications in the field of medical literature are a matter of prestige and fame for doctors. While genuine research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge, fraudulent data make publication unreliable, demeans the credibility of the author and reduces faith in science. Research misconduct includes the three cardinal sins fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. To promote highest standards in publication ethics, Committee on Publication Ethics provides advice and guidance to journals and publishers. Investigators should abide by ethical norms during the conduct of the research. Journals also maintain editorial standards and have well-defined policies for responding to misconduct. With an increase in medical publications over the years, it is important for all stakeholders to abide by publication ethics, in order to uphold the sanctity of research and credence in science.

Involving patients as research partners exemplified by the development and evaluation of a communication-skills training programme (KOKOS-Rheuma)

Despite widespread recommendations for involving patient research partners (PRPs), there is little information about how patients have been involved in research. Our aim was to describe and assess the contributions of four PRPs in a project on communication-skills training funded by Deutsche Rheuma-Liga Bundesverband e. V. (German League Against Rheumatism [GLR] is a patient organisation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases). The PRPs' participation was beneficial with regards to content and organisation. Thanks to their participation, we could enlarge our sample by over a third, and they contributed their own ideas to the training. Four PRPs added their perspective of various regional organisations. Outside this project, they were also very active within GLR and experienced in managing their rheumatic disease. To achieve more representativeness, future studies might also employ strategies to engage individuals with less experience in dealing with their disease, e.g. newly diagnosed patients. While the collaboration between PRPs and researchers proved very successful, more regular discussions about tasks and responsibilities would be worthwhile.

Authors Disclosing Their Theistic Orientation in Journal Articles on Religion and Health? Infrequent, Informal, and Mostly Inconsistent with Conflict of Interest

An international survey was conducted of authors (N = 288) in the religion-health (R-H) research field concerning the disclosure of their theistic orientation (T-O) (i.e., whether they believe in God[s], a Higher Power, or a universal spirit) in their journal articles. Most (74%) of the respondents said they never disclose their T-O in this context; e.g., because they feel the information is private (20%), irrelevant (36%), unimportant (56%), and/or likely to make them appear less credible (36%). Atheists were four times less likely than deists and gnostic theists were to disclose their T-O; authors who conducted experimental research and published more frequently were also less likely to disclose their T-O. When disclosure did occur, it was more likely to take place informally within the narrative of manuscripts. Most (66%) of the respondents did not view their T-O as a competing interest (CI). Agnostic theism and the absence of theistic belief were less likely to be experienced as CIs than gnostic theism, deism, and atheism were. The respondents predominantly disagreed both that T-O should be characterized as a CI (48%) and that authors in the R-H field should disclose their T-O as such (59%). Only 18% of the authors in this study who did perceive their T-O as a CI reported that they formally disclose that information to journals or publishers, while the majority (59%) of those authors said they never disclose the information in this context at all. The discussion focuses on reasons as to why authors might choose not to do so. Recommendations are offered for the R-H field.

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2019

This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) and its two daughter journals JCSM Rapid Communication and JCSM Clinical Reports. We request of all author sending to the journal a paper for consideration that at the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: all authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in JCSM as provided; each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication; no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; all authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; all original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; all relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editors of JCSM, JCSM Rapid Communication, and JCSM Clinical Reports, respectively, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Moving forward without leaving the ethical standard of publication

[no abstract available]

From Paper to Practice; Indexing Systems and Ethical Standards

Currently one of the main goals of editors is to attain a higher visibility for their journals. On the other hand, authors strive to publish their research in journals indexed in eminent databases such as Scopus, Thompson Reuters' Web of Science (ISI), Medline, etc. Therefore, clarifying the standards of indexing is of great importance. One of the most important issues in publication is the ethical considerations, which are mainly described by organizations, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics. In this study, we examined the ethical requirements of high impact databases for indexing journals to investigate whether they mention or mandate journals to adhere to publication ethics. We found that only Scopus mandated journals to state clear ethical policies on their website as a criterion for being indexed while Medline and Directory of Open Access Journals advised journals to adhere to ethics, not mandated, and Web of Science (ISI) and PubMed Central made no mention of ethics as a required criterion for indexing. Based on this short review, there seems to be a gap between the requirements of indexing systems and international guidelines for publication ethics. Currently, most indexing systems have only partially recommended journals to consider ethical issues. In such an atmosphere, we cannot expect journals or as a result, authors to professionally, completely, and whole heartedly implement ethical guidelines as a mandatory rule in their journals and research, when the indexing systems that most editors want to be indexed in and most authors want to be cited in do not mandate such guidelines.

Reporting of declarations and conflicts of interest in WHO guidelines can be further improved

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the declaration of interests (DOIs), management of conflict of interest (COI), and the funders for World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined all Guidelines Review Committee (GRC)-approved WHO guidelines published in English from January 2007 (inception of the GRC) to November 2016. We obtained a list of all such guidelines from the GRC Secretariat. Characteristics of guidelines including funders and individual contributors' DOI were independently extracted by two researchers. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the association between declarations and the number of organizations involved in development.

RESULTS

A total of 176 guidelines fulfilled inclusion criteria, encompassing 14 clinical or public health fields. Funders were reported in 128 (73%) of the guidelines: the most common were governments. DOI for external contributors were reported in 157 (89%) of the guidelines: 75 (48%) indicated no contributors with COI, 57 (36%) reported contributors with COI, and 25 (16%) reported collecting DOI but not whether COI existed. Financial COI were reported more frequently than nonfinancial COI. Of 57 guidelines that reported COI, 45 (79%) indicated how the COI were managed.

CONCLUSION

The majority of WHO guidelines reported their funding sources and the DOI and COI of external contributors in their guideline documents. However, there is a need for improvement, in particular for reporting of funders and their role, declaration processes, and management of COI.

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle: update 2017

This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript. Each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form. All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced. All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees. All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript. The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

On the road to 'research municipalities': analysing transdisciplinarity in municipal ecosystem services and adaptation planning

Transdisciplinary research and collaboration is widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for solution-oriented approaches that can tackle complex sustainability challenges, such as biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate-related hazards. In this context, city governments' engagement in transdisciplinarity is generally seen as a key condition for societal transformation towards sustainability. However, empirical evidence is rare. This paper presents a self-assessment of a joint research project on ecosystem services and climate adaptation planning (ECOSIMP) undertaken by four universities and seven Swedish municipalities. We apply a set of design principles and guiding questions for transdisciplinary sustainability projects and, on this basis, identify key aspects for supporting university-municipality collaboration. We show that: (1) selecting the number and type of project stakeholders requires more explicit consideration of the purpose of societal actors' participation; (2) concrete, interim benefits for participating practitioners and organisations need to be continuously discussed; (3) promoting the 'inter', i.e., interdisciplinary and inter-city learning, can support transdisciplinarity and, ultimately, urban sustainability and long-term change. In this context, we found that design principles for transdisciplinarity have the potential to (4) mitigate project shortcomings, even when transdisciplinarity is not an explicit aim, and (5) address differences and allow new voices to be heard. We propose additional guiding questions to address shortcomings and inspire reflexivity in transdisciplinary projects.

Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article

Dissemination of research findings through the publication of one's work or a group of contributors is an important part of the research process, as this allows the passing on of benefits to a much wider community. In whatever evocative form this dissemination may take, the onus lies on the author(s) to ensure adherence to the code of ethics as it pertains to the integrity of the information being put out. We publish because we want our findings to be adapted into practice and application, or in some cases may be relevant to policy makers in decision-making. To a large extent in the field of academia, successful publication improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion whilst enhancing scientific and scholarly achievement and repute. A situation may be compromised where intellectual contributions to a scientific investigation do not adhere to the four key guidelines of scholarship, authorship, approval and agreement as well as the protocols of ensuring good publication ethics. The objective of this review is to lay emphasis on universal standards for manuscript authorship and to fostering good practices. This in our view will bring authorship credit and accountability to the attention of our colleagues and readers at large. To achieve this, a systematic and critical review of the literature was undertaken. Electronic databases, academic journals and books from various sources were accessed. Several key search terms relating to responsible authorship, common authorship malpractices, conflict of interest, universal publication guidelines and other authorship related issues, were used. Only references deemed useful from relevant texts and journal articles were included. In this paper, the authors have sought to highlight the pitfalls researchers sometimes entangle themselves within an act of compromise thereby impinging on the ethical and professional responsibilities for the content of a paper under consideration. This article presents the case that authorship has a strong currency that brings not only personal satisfaction but also career rewards based on publication counting. In all cases described here, a universal standard for manuscript authorship will be critical in fostering good practices. As you write and review manuscripts, keep these good practices in mind, and consider ways to bring authorship credit and accountability to the attention of your colleagues and readers.

Highlighting common pitfalls to avoid when writing the medical education manuscript

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Medical educators have an unprecedented opportunity to advance the field through dissemination of their work in academic publications. Also, their advancement may depend heavily on the number of publications. However, writing is, for many medical educators, a daunting task. Fortunately, authors have provided valuable articles and tips on the "how-to" of writing, and faculty development workshops have provided venues during which one can write a basic paper. These all are valuable, but they do not cover some of the unforeseen potential problems associated with publishing. Hence, we offer common pitfalls that the unsuspecting author will want to avoid, grouped into four categories--ethics of publishing, aims of discourse, setting boundaries, and accountability--in a reflective framework that most educators will recognize. These highlights should better equip novice medical educators, provide insights for experienced medical education mentors, and enhance the likelihood that the scholarly work will be published.

Concern noted: A descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central

BACKGROUND

An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016.

RESULTS

After screening 5,076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year's end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017.

Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

Background

The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles.

Methods

We searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data.

Results

Following database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8-5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6-51), with a range of 0-742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form.

Conclusions

Retractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted.

Terrorism, Radicalisation, Extremism, Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Assessments

Background

Currently, terrorism and suicide bombing are global psychosocial processes that attracts a growing number of psychological and psychiatric contributions to enhance practical counter-terrorism measures. The present study is a systematic review that explores the methodological quality reporting and the psychometric soundness of the instruments developed to identify risk factors of terrorism, extremism, radicalisation, authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Method

A systematic search strategy was established to identify instruments and studies developed to screen individuals at risk of committing extremist or terrorist offences using 20 different databases across the fields of law, medicine, psychology, sociology and politics. Information extracted was consolidated into two different tables and a 26-item checklist, reporting respectively background information, the psychometric properties of each tool, and the methodological quality markers of these tools. 37 articles met our criteria, which included a total of 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, 17 tools developed as research measures, and 9 inventories that have not been generated from a study.

Results

Just over half of the methodological quality markers required for a transparent methodological description of the instruments were reported. The amount of reported psychological properties was even fewer, with only a third of them available across the different studies. The category presenting the least satisfactory results was that containing the 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, which can be explained by the fact that half of them refrained from publishing the major part of their findings and relevant guidelines.

Conclusions

A great number of flaws have been identified through this systematic review. The authors encourage future researchers to be more thorough, comprehensive and transparent in their methodology. They also recommend the creation of a multi-disciplinary joint working group in order to best tackle this growing contemporary problem.

Conflicts of interest in randomised controlled surgical trials: systematic review and qualitative and quantitative analysis

Conflicts of interest may lead to biased trial designs and unbalanced interpretation of study results. We aimed to evaluate the reporting of potential conflicts of interest in full publications of surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic literature search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE (1985-2014) to find all surgical RCTs of medical devices and perioperative pharmacological or nutritional interventions. The information on conflicts of interest was evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, and the development of stated conflicts over time was studied. Of 7934 articles, 444 met the inclusion criteria. In 93 of 444 trials (20.9%), conflicts of interest were disclosed. In half of the cases, the information provided was insufficient to permit conclusions regarding possible influence on the trials. Information about conflicts of interest has increased continuously during the last decades (1985-1994: 0%, 1995-2004: 2.8% and 2005-2014: 33.0%; p<0.001). Among the 115 industry-funded trials, industry participation was considered as a potential conflict of interest in 24 cases (20.9%). Over the past three decades, only every 10th trial has provided appropriate information on conflicts of interest. However, transparency is crucial for the reliability of evidence-based medicine. There is an urgent need for the full disclosure of all conflicts of interest in surgical publishing and for transparency regarding cooperation between academia and industry.

Towards a bioethics of innovation

In recent years, it has become almost axiomatic that biomedical research and clinical practice should be 'innovative'-that is, that they should be always evolving and directed towards the production, translation and implementation of new technologies and practices. While this drive towards innovation in biomedicine might be beneficial, it also raises serious moral, legal, economic and sociopolitical questions that require further scrutiny. In this article, we argue that biomedical innovation needs to be accompanied by a dedicated 'bioethics of innovation' that attends systematically to the goals, process and outcomes of biomedical innovation as objects of critical inquiry. Using the example of personalised or precision medicine, we then suggest a preliminary framework for a bioethics of innovation, based on the research policy initiative of 'Responsible Innovation'. We invite and encourage critiques of this framework and hope that this will provoke a challenging and enriching new bioethical discourse.

Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authors who have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why journals should not, in general, publish articles describing research that has no ethics approval, with particular attention to the health promotion context.

METHODS

Using theoretical bioethical reasoning and drawing on a case study, we first rebut some potential criticisms of the need for research ethics approval. We then outline four positive claims to justify a presumption that research should, in most instances, be published only if it has been undertaken with HREC approval.

RESULTS

We present four justifications for requiring ethics approval before publication: (1) HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (2) the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated; (3) obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (4) obtaining HREC approval demonstrates respect for persons.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of why research ethics approval should generally be obtained before publishing in the health promotion context. So what? Journals such as the Health Promotion Journal of Australia have recently begun to require research ethics approval for publishing research. Health promotion researchers will be interested in learning the ethical justification for this change.

Are neuromuscular blocking agents being misused in laboratory pigs?

The literature (2012-4) describing experimental pig surgery was reviewed to estimate the extent to which neuromuscular block (NMB) is used, to examine methods for ensuring unconsciousness, and to identify the rationale for use of NMB and establish the anaesthetist's training. In the first stage of a two-stage review, NMB use was estimated using Web of Knowledge to identify articles describing NMB during pig surgeries. In the second stage, PubMed and Google Scholar were used to increase the number of articles for determining measures taken to prevent accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). The corresponding authors of screened articles were emailed four times to establish the reason for using NMB and the anaesthetists' backgrounds (medical, veterinary, or technical). The first search revealed NMB use in 80 of 411 (20%) studies. Of the 153 articles analysed in the second stage, two described strategies to reduce AAGA. Some (6%) papers did not provide information on anaesthetic doses; citations supporting anaesthetic efficacy were found in only 13. Five of 69 papers using inhalation agents measured end-tidal anaesthetic concentrations based on human, not porcine, minimal alveolar concentrations. The methods in 13% of articles reporting anaesthetic depth assessment were incomplete or questionable, or both; four described using somatic motor reflexes. Corresponding authors of 121 articles reported that the principal reason for NMB was improved 'surgical visualization' (26%). Medical or veterinary anaesthetists supervised anaesthesia in 70% of studies; non-anaesthetists provided NMB, unsupervised, in 23. Nine respondents prioritized experimental expediency over pig welfare. In laboratory pig studies, AAGA may be prevalent; reported details of its attempted prevention are woefully inadequate.

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2015

This article details the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: (i) all authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM; (ii) no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; (iii) no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; (iv) the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; (v) all authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced; (vi) all original research work are approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; (vii) all conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript; (viii) the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true; and (ix) If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Disclosures, conflict of interest, and funding issues in urogynecology articles: a bibliometric study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The ethical behavior of authors, editors, and journals is increasingly placed in the spotlight, by both the public and the research community. Disclosures and conflict of interest (COI) statements of publishing authors represent one important aspect. We aimed to unravel the current management of disclosures, COI, and funding statements in the subspecialty urogynecology.

METHODS

A bibliometric study was carried out. We included six journals that published urogynecology articles between January and December 2013. All original articles, reviews, and opinion articles were assessed for the presence of disclosure/COI and funding statements. Information given on the official disclosure form was compared with information given in the final article (International Urogynecology Journal).

RESULTS

All journals investigated require disclosure and funding statements in their instructions to authors. Of the 434 articles included, almost all contained a disclosure statement (98-100 %). Funding statements were present in 41-100 % of articles, indicating a difference in journal type (50 % on average among urogynecology journals; 75 % on average among general gynecology journals). The main source of funding was "grants" (58 %), followed by "none" (16 %), "industry" (16 %), and lastly "hospital/university" (10 %). Disclosure statements in the article were identical to the official disclosure form in 80 % (IUJ).

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosure/COI statements were included in almost all urogynecology articles investigated. Their content, however, is sometimes incomplete and should possibly be monitored more closely by journals and authors. Despite universal requirements of journals, the reporting of funding seems inconsistent. This issue in addition to the completeness of disclosures should be given more attention.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. These new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is included about whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. These guidelines are also published in: Headache, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences

Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. They are also published in Advanced Materials, Headache, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. They are also published in Advanced Materials, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. The new guidelines are also published in Advanced Materials, Headache, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Ethics in medical research and publication

To present the basic principles and standards of Ethics in medical research and publishing, as well as the need for continuing education in the principles and ethics in science and publication in biomedicine. An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the published literature. Investing in education of researches and potential researches, already in the level of medical schools. Educating them on research ethics, what constitutes research misconduct and the seriousness of it repercussion is essential for finding a solution to this problem and ensuring careers are constructed on honesty and integrity.

The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training

Recognizing bias in health research is crucial for evidence-based decision making. We worked with eight community groups to develop materials for nine modular, individualized critical appraisal workshops we conducted with 102 consumers (four workshops), 43 healthcare providers (three workshops), and 33 journalists (two workshops) in California. We presented workshops using a "cycle of bias" framework, and developed a toolbox of presentations, problem-based small group sessions, and skill-building materials to improve participants' ability to evaluate research for financial and other conflicts of interest, bias, validity, and applicability. Participant feedback indicated that the adaptability of the toolbox and our focus on bias were critical elements in the success of our workshops.

I publish in I edit?--Do editorial board members of urologic journals preferentially publish their own scientific work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001-2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001-2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006-2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001-2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the 'own' journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the 'own' journal after assumption of editorship.

Muscle, Ligaments and Tendons Journal. Basic principles and recommendations in clinical and field science research

The design, implementation, evaluation, interpretation and report of research is a key important for the science. The research required minimize the uncertainty, therefore we encourage all authors of respect how much can possible the contents in this official editorial also in order to stimulate interest and debate about constructive change in the use of statistics in our disciplines1,2. Authors are required to confirm that these standards and laws have been adhered to by formally citing this editorial within the methods section of their own manuscript.

Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals

Background

It 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Of 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.

Conclusions

Only 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.