Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

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.

Standardization, ethics and biometric indicators in scientific publication: integrative review

OBJECTIVE

to analyze scientific evidence available in health literature on ethics, standardization and biometric indicators.

METHOD

an integrative review carried out in August 2016, on the databases: National Library of Medicine, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Latin-American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences), and on the library Scientific Electronic Library Online. The review included primary articles on: ethics, standardization and biometric indicators, in Portuguese, English, or Spanish; and excluded studies that were not found as full texts, as well as opinions, commentary, reviews, theses, and dissertations. For the evaluation of the articles, it was used evidence levels from one to five.

RESULTS

eight articles were included, with scientific evidence levels 4 and 5: scientific productivism, production evaluation systems, internationalization, impact factor, classification of journals, and adequate and inadequate practices for publication.

CONCLUSION

it was verified the need for publications with higher evidence levels so that Brazilian journals can follow international standards dealing with research ethics.

Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools

The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice.

Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

IMPORTANCE

Conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.

RESULTS

Of 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Predatory journals: Do not judge journals by their Editorial Board Members

Objective: Given that often the quality of journals is based on its editors, the objective of this study was to describe quantitatively the profiles of members of editorial boards (MEBs) of presumed predatory journals. Methods: The following information was retrieved from 1015 editors taken from journals listed in Beall's list: country, university, position, and degree. The Scopus website was used to identify the number of citations, documents, and h-index. Results: Presumed open access predatory journals are including all types of profiles as their MEBs, which include fake and unqualified editors, but mostly very high-qualified scientists who are professors, medical doctors and/or had a PhD. MEBs were located in 74 different countries, most had an affiliation in the United States of America (USA) (44.4%). The median of publications per editor was 43, number of citations 664 and h-index 14. Conclusions: The results dispute the common belief that it is possible to identify predatory journals by checking their editorial boards. Scientists should not rely on the editors to determine if a journal is predatory. If an author has doubt, the editors should be contacted.

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

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.

Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior

Most departments in any field of science that have a sound academic basis have discussion groups or journal clubs in which pertinent and relevant literature is frequently discussed, as a group. This paper shows how such discussions could help to fortify the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement, and could thus fortify the value of traditional peer review, if their content and conclusions were made known to the wider academic community. Recently, there are some tools available for making PPPR viable, either as signed (PubMed Commons) or anonymous comments (PubPeer), or in a hybrid format (Publons). Thus, limited platforms are currently in place to accommodate and integrate PPPR as a supplement to traditional peer review, allowing for the open and public discussion of what is often publicly-funded science. This paper examines ways in which the opinions that emerge from journal clubs or discussion groups could help to fortify the integrity and reliability of science while increasing its accountability. A culture of reward for good and corrective behavior, rather than a culture that protects silence, would benefit science most.

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

The issue of predatory journals has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade, as the open-access model of publishing has gained prominence. Although the open-access model is well intentioned to increase accessibility of biomedical research, it is vulnerable to exploitation by those looking to corrupt medical academia and circumvent ethics and research standards. Predatory journals will achieve publication by either soliciting unsuspecting researchers who have legitimate research but fall victim to these predators or researchers looking to quickly publish their research without a thorough review process. Some features of predatory journals are a quick non-peer-review process, falsely listing or exaggerating the credibility of editorial board members, and either lack of or falsification of institutional affiliations and database listings. These predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical research, as they will infect the available literature with unsubstantiated articles, and allow low-quality research. A number of steps can be taken to prevent the spread and increase awareness of predatory publishers, and these must be done to maintain the integrity of medical academia. Clin. Anat. 30:767-773, 2017. © 2017Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities

This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of 'prolific' scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.