Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers

Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

Author language and communication preferences, and familiarity with global publication guidelines, for English-language industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific: insights from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To understand current practices and challenges for collecting author feedback for English-language, industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the implications for adherence to international publication guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, internet-based survey of industry ('internal') authors (17 questions) and publication professionals (18 questions) supporting publications in APAC, conducted between November 18 and December 4, 2022.

RESULTS

Overall, 142 survey responses were received, of which 94 (66%) were complete and included in the analysis (33 internal authors, 61 publication professionals). Almost half (45%) of internal authors preferred a non-English language for providing feedback on publications, and most (70%) would use this language whenever possible. Internal authors favored written (91%) versus spoken (73%) English, and email was the preferred mode of communication. Publication professionals said they have observed qualitative differences when authors provide feedback in a preferred non-English language versus English. Many agreed that authors tend to provide more substantive or critical feedback when they can respond in their preferred non-English language. Internal authors had low self-assessed familiarity with key publication guidelines, while most publication professionals had a moderate or high self-assessed familiarity. The main barriers to application of publication guidelines, as rated by publication professionals, were that external authors in APAC are not familiar with global publication guidelines and do not always provide feedback/responses in writing.

CONCLUSION

It is important to consider the diverse language, cultural, and communication preferences of individuals involved in English-language publication development in APAC, and to ensure that authors are aware of current publication guidelines and best practices.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings.

RESULTS

ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

Is qualitative social research in global health fulfilling its potential?: a systematic evidence mapping of research on point-of-care testing in low- and middle-income contexts

BACKGROUND

Qualitative social research has made valuable contributions to understanding technology-based interventions in global health. However, we have little evidence of who is carrying out this research, where, how, for what purpose, or the overall scope of this body of work. To address these questions, we undertook a systematic evidence mapping of one area of technology-focused research in global health, related to the development, deployment and use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

We conducted an exhaustive search to identify papers reporting on primary qualitative studies that explore the development, deployment, and use of POCTs in LMICs and screened results to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included studies and descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria, with numbers increasing year by year. Funding of studies was primarily credited to high income country (HIC)-based institutions (95%) and 64% of first authors were affiliated with HIC-based institutions. Study sites, in contrast, were concentrated in a small number of LMICs. Relatively few studies examined social phenomena related to POCTs that take place in HICs. Seventy-one percent of papers reported on studies conducted within the context of a trial or intervention. Eighty percent reported on studies considering POCTs for HIV and/or malaria. Studies overwhelmingly reported on POCT use (91%) within primary-level health facilities (60%) or in hospitals (30%) and explored the perspectives of the health workforce (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

A reflexive approach to the role, status, and contribution of qualitative and social science research is crucial to identifying the contributions it can make to the production of global health knowledge and understanding the roles technology can play in achieving global health goals. The body of qualitative social research on POCTs for LMICs is highly concentrated in scope, overwhelmingly focuses on testing in the context of a narrow number of donor-supported initiatives and is driven by HIC resources and expertise. To optimise the full potential of qualitative social research requires the promotion of open and just research ecosystems that broaden the scope of inquiry beyond established public health paradigms and build social science capacity in LMICs.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar

Information regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its contributing factors are limited in Myanmar. We aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported plagiarism practices of postgraduate students in Myanmar's universities and determine the factors associated with plagiarism. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study during 2019-2020. The questionnaire contained: 1) demographics, 2) knowledge on plagiarism, 3) attitudes toward plagiarism, and 4) self-reported plagiarism practices. We calculated attitudes and plagiarism severity scores (PSS). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses and binary logistic regression analyses. A p-value <0.05 denoted statistical significance. We enrolled 217 participants. Of our participants, 37.6% self-reported at least one plagiarism act. The mean attitude score (S.D.) was 62.24 (10.44), (maximum score was 92, higher scores represent disapproval of plagiarism). This attitude score reflects only a moderate attitude toward disapproval of plagiarism. The attitude score was significantly higher for doctoral students (9.2%) than master students (90.8%); p = 0.003; and for participants with publications (13.4%) compared with those without publications (86.6%); p = 0.005. The attitude score was a significant predictor of the PSS. We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that plagiarism represents a significant ethical issue in Myanmar and recommend that Myanmar universities provide training in responsible conduct of research.

Advancing guideline quality through country-wide and regional quality assessment of CPGs using AGREE: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evaluated for quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool, and this is increasingly done for different countries and regional groupings. This scoping review aimed to describe, map, and compare these geographical synthesis studies, that assessed CPG quality using the AGREE tool. This allowed a global interpretation of the current landscape of these country-wide or regional synthesis studies, and a closer look at its methodology and results.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted searching databases Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos, and grey literature on 5 October 2021 for synthesis studies using the later versions of AGREE (AGREE II, AGREE-REX and AGREE GRS) to evaluate country-wide or regional CPG quality. Country-wide or regional synthesis studies were the units of analysis, and simple descriptive statistics was used to conduct the analysis. AGREE scores were analysed across subgroups into one of the seven Sustainable Development Goal regions, to allow for meaningful interpretation.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria, which had included a total of 2918 CPGs. Regions of the Global North, and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia were most represented. Studies were consistent in reporting and presenting their AGREE domain and overall results, but only 18% (n = 10) reported development methods, and 19% (n = 11) reported use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Overall scores for domains Rigor of development and Editorial independence were low, notably in middle-income countries. Editorial Independence scores, especially, were low across all regions with a maximum domain score of 46%. There were no studies from low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

There is an increasing tendency to appraise country-wide and regionally grouped CPGs, using quality appraisal tools. The AGREE tool, evaluated in this scoping review, was used well and consistently across studies. Findings of low report rates of development of CPGs and of use of GRADE is concerning, as is low domain scores globally for Editorial Independence. Transparent reporting of funding and competing interests, as well as highlighting evidence-to-decision processes, should assist in further improving CPG quality as clinicians are in dire need of high-quality guidelines.

Governance of research and product improvement studies in consumer mental health apps. Interviews with researchers and app developers

Consumer mental health apps (MHAs) collect and generate mental health-related data on their users, which can be leveraged for research and product improvement studies. Such studies are associated with ethical issues that may be difficult for researchers and app developers to assess. To improve ethical study conduct, governance through rules, agreements and customs could be relied upon, but their translation into practice is subject to barriers. This qualitative interview study with 17 researchers and app developers looked into the role and impact of governance standards on consumer MHA studies. Interviewees experienced a significant number of rules, agreements and customs, although not all of the governance standards that can potentially be applicable. Standards did have an impact on the interests of researchers and app developers, app users and society, but this impact was mediated by several barriers related to their conceptualization and implementation. Conceptualization barriers impacted the development of a standard, the inclusion of relevant concepts and the coordination between standards. Implementation barriers concerned the resource cost of understanding a standard, as well as suboptimal enforcement. The framework developed in this study can support more effective efforts to improve the governance of future consumer MHA studies.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

Overdue Assignment: A Case Study on Academic Writing Development for Postgraduate Health Professional Trainees in Kenya

OBJECTIVES

Though essential for research capacity building, development of authorial identity for thesis projects and publications has been overlooked in African postgraduate residency programs. This study aims to explore authorial identity among postgraduate health professional trainees at two universities in Kenya. It also evaluated the effect of Age of Acquisition of English on confidence in writing.

METHODS

This exploratory case study utilized quantitative and qualitative data. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were generated from learning objectives and evaluated confidence in writing and plagiarism awareness, both important attributes of authorial identity. As confidence in writing might be influenced by the English Age of Acquisition, the questionnaire also included items from the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire. Pre- and post-workshop responses were analyzed using planned comparisons. Focus group discussions further explored authorial identity among participants and were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 57 postgraduate trainees from nine medical specialties participated in the study. Both confidence in writing and plagiarism awareness improved significantly after the workshop: confidence in writing pre-test (M = 3.20, SD = 0.59) and post-test (M = 3.97, SD = 0.61), t(56) = 6.93, P < .001, d = 0.9; plagiarism awareness pre-test (M = 3.01, SD 0.72) and post-test (M = 3.92, SD 0.65), t(56) = 6,8, P < .001, d = 0.9. The average English Age of Acquisition was 4.98 years and showed no correlation with confidence in writing. Participants recognized that authentic authorship requires hard work and suggested plagiarism is driven by inadequate writing instruction. They proposed that changing perceptions of research and writing could overcome a graduation requirement mindset among trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactive workshops using procedural and enculturation approaches may be useful to develop authorial identity among postgraduate health professionals in Kenya. Further research is needed on evaluating workshop effectiveness using direct indicators of learning and other curricular reforms to promote authorship.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies.

Authorship trends in infectious diseases society of America affiliated journal articles conducted in low-income countries, 1998-2018

An increasing amount of infectious diseases research is conducted in low-income countries (LIC) given their high burden of disease; however, the contribution of LIC investigators as measured by authorship metrics, specifically to infectious diseases research, has not been thoroughly studied. We performed a literature search for primary research conducted either within LICs or using samples from LIC participants published between 1998-2017 in the Infectious Disease Society of America-affiliated journals Clinical Infectious Diseases, Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Open Forum Infectious Diseases. Primary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated first and last authors (i.e. lead authors) per year and authorship trends over time. Secondary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated authorship by geographic distribution and disease focus. Among 1308 publications identified, 50% had either a first or last LIC-affiliated author. Among these authors, 48% of LIC-affiliated first authors and 52% of LIC-affiliated last authors also reported a non-LIC institutional affiliation. While the absolute number of articles by LIC-affiliated lead authors increased over the 20-year period, the proportion of articles with LIC-affiliated lead authors decreased. There is a growing literature for infectious disease research conducted in LICs yet authorship trends in a small subset of these publications demonstrate a pronounced and worsening exclusion of LIC-affiliated investigators from publishing as lead authors.

Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations

Integrity and adherence to appropriate ethical standards are important elements of research. These standards are key to protecting research participants´ rights as well as ensuring the reliability and quality of research outputs. Although empirical evidence is scanty, several authors have alluded to the fact that violation of research integrity standards could be common in low- and middle-income countries including sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Understanding the issues, challenges, and opportunities of research integrity and ethics in SSA is key to promoting the responsible conduct of research and the protection of research participants. This paper presents the authors´ critical views and recommendations on the current state of research integrity in SSA. We argue that understanding the current research integrity architecture in SSA has the potential to identify opportunities to promote responsible conduct of research in SSA. Such opportunities include, but are not limited to transparency, accountability, and reproducibility of research, which collectively lead to enhanced public trust in the research enterprise. We highlight the need to embrace equity, fairness, diversity, and inclusivity in the research cycle from conception (priority setting), funding, implementation, dissemination of findings, and scale up. We move on to provide a rationale for understanding the differences and similarities between research ethics and research integrity. Governments, research, and academic institutions must develop multifaceted approaches to promote compliance with principles of research integrity by developing and implementing clear research integrity policies and guidelines that foster responsible conduct of research and prioritize capacity building and empowerment of early career researchers, students, and other targeted key stakeholders.

DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATIONS IN VIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS RECOMMENDATIONS

As potential conflicts of interest (COI) are common in biomedical research, handling related issues and managing disclosures is increasingly important. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) revised its guidance on COI in 2019 and introduced the latest version of the COI Disclosure Form in 2021. These documents provide guidance regarding COI policy for ICMJE member and non-member journals. The 2019 revision overviews the main changes in the ICMJE policy. The ICMJE prioritizes appropriate COI disclosures by authors and all others involved in scholarly publishing. Increasing the global awareness of the COI updated policies among all stakeholders is essential for strengthening ethical standing of journals.

Ethics in global research: Creating a toolkit to support integrity and ethical action throughout the research journey

Global challenge-led research seeks to contribute to solution-generation for complex problems. Multicultural, multidisciplinary, and multisectoral teams must be capable of operating in highly demanding contexts. This brings with it a swathe of ethical conflicts that require quick and effective solutions that respect both international conventions and cultural diversity. The objective of this article is to describe the process of creating a toolkit designed to support global researchers in navigating these ethical challenges. The process of creating the toolkit embodied the model of ethical research practice that it advocates. Specifically, at the heart of ethical decision-making is consideration of the following: Place, solutions must be relevant to the context in which they are to be used; People, those impacted by the outcomes must be partners in co-creation; Principles, ethical projects must be guided by clear values; and Precedent, the existing evidence-base should guide the project and, in turn, the project should extend the evidence-base. It is the thesis underlying the toolkit that consideration of these 4Ps provides a strong basis for understanding ethical conflicts and allows for the generation of potential solutions. This toolkit has been designed in two phases of collaborative work. More than 200 researchers participated from more than 30 countries and more than 60 different disciplines. This allowed us to develop a model for contextual, dynamic analysis of ethical conflicts in global research that is complementary to traditional codes of ethics. It emphasizes the need to consider ethical analysis as an iterative, reflective, process relevant at all stages of the research journey, including, ultimately, in evaluating the legacy of a project. The toolkit is presented as an open access website to promote universal access. A downloadable “pocket guide” version is also now available in 11 languages.

Challenges and growth opportunities: the landscape of Chinese medical publication professionals in the global context: a questionnaire-based survey

OBJECTIVE

The Chinese healthcare industry has immense potential for innovation and requires competent publication professionals for global reach. Changes in regulatory landscape of China necessitates pharmaceutical industries to collaborate with medical professionals who are capable of keeping up with both changes in regulations and innovative medicine.

METHODS

We initiated an online questionnaire-based survey via WeChat from August 3 to August 14, 2019 which focused on experience level, challenges, career development, and training requirements of survey participants.

RESULTS

A total of 53 medical publication professionals participated in this survey. Contrary to global trends, 77% of participants had <5 years of professional experience in publication, although only 36% of participants had <5 years of experience in healthcare industry. In all, 63% of respondents spent <50% of their time in publication-related activities, contributing to <10 manuscripts per year. Their expertise in manuscripts spanned clinical studies (68%), post-marketing studies (62%), and reviews (38%). Poor research design and data quality, limited medical writing skill, and inefficient communication with authors were major challenges for developing high-quality publications. Awareness of good publication practices guidelines was high (49%) and 15% of respondents were Certified Medical Publication Professionals. Strategic publication planning (72%), industry trends (66%), and best practices (55%) were some of training requirements identified to increase competencies among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Chinese medical publication professional industry is at a nascent stage, an attempt is being made to provide opportunities for its publication professionals to develop their competencies to match global standards.

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine

Publishing articles in international scientific journals is the primary method for the communication of validated research findings and ideas. Journal articles are commonly used as a major input for evaluations of researchers and institutions. Few articles have been published previously about the different aspects needed for writing high-quality articles. In this manuscript, we provide an updated and brief guide for the multiple dimensions needed for writing manuscripts in the health and biological sciences, from current, international and interdisciplinary perspectives and from our expertise as authors, peer reviewers and editors. We provide key suggestions for writing major sections of the manuscript (e.g. title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion), for submitting the manuscript and bring an overview of the peer review process and  of the post-publication impact of the articles.

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight

There are increasing calls to decolonise aspects of science, and global health is no exception. The decolonising global health movement acknowledges that global health research perpetuates existing power imbalances and aims to identify concrete ways in which global health teaching and research can overcome its colonial past and present. Using the context of clinical trials implemented through transnational research partnerships (TRPs) as a case study, this narrative review brings together perspectives from clinical research and social science to lay out specific ways in which TRPs build on and perpetuate colonial power relations. We will explore three core components of TRPs: participant experience, expertise and infrastructure, and authorship. By combining a critical perspective with recently published literature we will recommend specific ways in which TRPs can be decolonised. We conclude by discussing decolonising global health as a potential practice and object of research. By doing this we intend to frame the decolonising global health movement as one that is accessible to everyone and within which we can all play an active role.

Principles of research ethics: A research primer for low- and middle-income countries

Ethical oversight in the form of review boards and research ethics committees provide protection for research subjects as well as guidance for safe conduct of studies. As the number of collaborative emergency care research studies carried out in low- and middle-income countries increases, it is crucial to have a shared understanding of how ethics should inform choice of study topic, study design, methods of obtaining consent, data management, and access to treatment after closure of the study. This paper describes the basic principles of Western research ethics - respect for persons, beneficence, and justice - and how the principles may be contextualized in different settings, by researchers of various backgrounds with different funding streams. Examples of lapses in ethical practice of research are used to highlight best practices.

AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.

Status, Respect, and Stigma: A Qualitative Study of Non-financial Interests in Medicine

Conflicts of interest (COI) in health and medicine have been the source of considerable public and professional debate. Much of this debate has focused on financial, rather than non-financial COI, which is a significant lacuna because non-financial COI can be just as influential as financial COI. In an effort to explore the nature and effects of non-financial, as well as financial COI, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eleven Australian medical professionals regarding their experiences of, and attitudes towards, COI. We found that this group of medical professionals saw non-financial interests-most notably the pursuit of status and respect and the avoidance of stigma-as potentially conflicting with other important interests (such as patient care).

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing

Background

Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing.

Methods

We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al.

Results

We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively.

Conclusion

Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Improving Pediatric Academic Global Health Collaborative Research and Agenda Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study

Academic global health collaborations have the potential to improve joint understanding of health issues in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to elucidate perceptions of benefits and challenges of academic global health collaborations as well as areas for improving collaborative research conducted in LMICs. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study surveyed investigators' perceptions of benefits and challenges of pediatric academic global health collaborations. Authors of articles from four pediatric journals reporting pediatric research conducted in LMICs published between 2006 and 2015 were surveyed. Responses of LMIC investigators were compared with those of investigators in high-income countries (HICs). Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a combined thematic and content analysis approach. Of 1,420 potential respondents, 252 (17.7%) responded to the survey. Collaborative research with investigators from other countries was perceived as beneficial by 88.5% of respondents (n = 223), although this perception was more common among HIC respondents (n = 110, 94.0%) than LMIC respondents (n = 113, 83.7%) (p = 0.014). Sixty-seven percent (n = 170) of respondents perceived that HIC investigators had set the research agenda in work conducted in a LMIC. Respondents identified several critical factors to improve academic global health collaborations, including research capacity building, communication, and early involvement of LMIC investigators with shared decision-making during study conception and grant writing. Pediatric academic global health collaboration was widely perceived as positive. However, despite calls for capacity building and locally generated research ideas, many respondents felt that HIC investigators set the research agenda for work conducted in LMICs. This study provides suggestions for improving collaboration among pediatric academicians globally.

Mentorship and Ethics in Global Health: Fostering Scientific Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research

Addressing ethical issues through mentorship is key to encouraging scientific integrity and increasing research capacity. Across the global health arena, mentorship requires helping mentees understand and negotiate the regulatory aspects of research—which can substantially differ even between countries with similar resources. Mentorship support spans across the research framework from obtaining ethical approval and ensuring scientific integrity, to determining authorship and disseminating study results—providing multiple opportunities to model ethical behavior for mentees. The power imbalances between the global north and south in accessing funding resources produce further challenges in setting the research agenda and for ensuring equity in the dissemination of research findings. Gender further complicates the aspiration for equity; the proportion of women in high administrative or research positions remains low. This study explores four specific mentoring case scenarios commonly encountered in the global health research field in low- and middle-income institutions.

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

Advancing research integrity: a programme to embed good practice in Africa

In Africa, training programmes as well as institutional policies on research integrity are lacking. Institutions have a responsibility to oversee research integrity through various efforts, including policies and training. We developed, implemented and evaluated an institutional approach to promote research integrity at African institutions, comprising a workshop for researchers ("bottom-up") and discussions with senior faculty on institutional policies ("top-down"). During the first day, we facilitated a workshop to introduce research integrity and promote best practices with regards to authorship, plagiarism, redundant publication and conflicts of interest. We used a variety of interactive teaching approaches to facilitate learning, including individual and group activities, small group discussions and case-based learning. We met with senior faculty on the following day to provide feedback and insights from the workshop, review current institutional policies and provide examples of what other research groups are doing. We evaluated the process. Participants actively engaged in discussions, recognised the importance of the topic and acknowledged that poor practices occurred at their institution. Discussions with senior researchers resulted in the establishment of a working group tasked with developing a publication policy for the institution. Our approach kick-started conversations on research integrity at institutions. There is a need for continued discussions, integrated training programmes and implementation of institutional policies and guidelines to promote good practices.

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether regional biomedical journals in Africa had policies on plagiarism and procedures to detect it; and to measure the extent of plagiarism in their original research articles and reviews.

DESIGN

Cross sectional survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We selected journals with an editor-in-chief in Africa, a publisher based in a low or middle income country and with author guidelines in English, and systematically searched the African Journals Online database. From each of the 100 journals identified, we randomly selected five original research articles or reviews published in 2016.

OUTCOMES

For included journals, we examined the presence of plagiarism policies and whether they referred to text matching software. We submitted articles to Turnitin and measured the extent of plagiarism (copying of someone else's work) or redundancy (copying of one's own work) against a set of criteria we had developed and piloted.

RESULTS

Of the 100 journals, 26 had a policy on plagiarism and 16 referred to text matching software. Of 495 articles, 313 (63%; 95% CI 58 to 68) had evidence of plagiarism: 17% (83) had at least four linked copied or more than six individual copied sentences; 19% (96) had three to six copied sentences; and the remainder had one or two copied sentences. Plagiarism was more common in the introduction and discussion, and uncommon in the results.

CONCLUSION

Plagiarism is common in biomedical research articles and reviews published in Africa. While wholesale plagiarism was uncommon, moderate text plagiarism was extensive. This could rapidly be eliminated if journal editors implemented screening strategies, including text matching software.

Misuse of Coauthorship in Medical Theses in Sweden

The aim of this study was to explore experiences of authorship issues among persons who have recently received their doctoral degree in medicine in Sweden. A survey was mailed to all who received their PhD at a medical faculty at a Swedish university the first half of 2016. Questions concerned experiences of violations of the first three authorship criteria in the Vancouver rules and of misuse of authorship order in the articles of their thesis, and the respondents' attitudes to these matters. The questionnaire was returned by 285 respondents (68%). According to the majority (53%), the Vancouver rules were not fully respected in the articles of their thesis. A vast majority (97%) found it important that authorship issues are handled correctly, but only 19% responded that their department has a clear and consistently applied policy. We conclude that authorship guidelines are frequently disrespected at medical faculties in Sweden. The universities seem to provide limited support on authorship issues.