Format-1(a) (in PowerPoint)

Disclaimer:

©This PowerPoint presentation and

the video contents transmitted solely
belongs to VTU e-Learning Centre
and is copyright protected.
Publication Ethics

Definition, importance; Publication Ethics:

Standards Setting Agencies Guidelines
International Agencies, COPE, WANE,
OASPA National: UGC, CSIR, INSA
Publisher Polices: ExampleElsevier, IEEE
 Research

Research allows you to pursue your

interests, to learn something new, to hone
your problem-solving skills and to
challenge yourself in new ways.
 Why Publications?
Ø Publication is the final affirmation of scholarly accomplishment.
Ø Scientific community can assess, correct & further develop only
if the scientific results are published.
Ø Today, authors are eager to publish, their main purposes being
to advance science and, they hope, mankind.
Ø The author receives acclaim and finds publication of his or her
work satisfying. Academic advancement, “publish or perish,” as
well as prestige, are other important driving forces.
Ø There are many financial benefits (direct and indirect) in
publishing such as promotion and further research funding.
Many of these forces can lead to ethical lapses.
 Publish or Perish
Ø Publish or perish’ (POP) is a phrase that describes the pressure put on academics to
publish in scholarly journals rapidly and continually as a condition for employment
(finding a job), promotion, and even maintaining one’s job.

Ø POP may be advocated on the grounds that a good track record in publications
brings attention to the authors and their institutions, which can facilitate continued
funding and the progress of the authors themselves.

Ø The POP culture has led to a relentless quest for publications – the sole objective
being CV building rather than the advancement of human knowledge.

Ø One perceived benefit of the POP model is that some pressure to produce research
is necessary to motivate academics early in their careers to focus on research
advancement and learn to balance research activity with other responsibilities.
 What is Authorship?
ØAuthorship is a privilege and not a right.
ØResponsible and ethical authorship requires that the
work be trustworthy, truthful and fair.
ØTruthfulness means that false claims are not present,
including the claim of authorship.
Ø False claims must be distinguished from errors or
inaccuracies, which occur in up to 20% of
manuscripts.
Ø Trustworthy means that the authors have attempted to
eliminate bias in analyzing the truthful information
presented to the readers.
Ø Fairness is the public disclosure of the affiliations of
those who participated in the study and its preparation.
Ø It is important that all authors agree on the
truthfulness, trustworthiness and fairness of the
manuscript before submission for publication.
Authors should be ethical, accountable and independent
 Ethics
Ø Ethics, derived from the Greek word ‘ethikos’ are a set of principles for right
conduct in a particular field.
Ø They carry a greater significance in the field of medical research and
publication as these are directly related to the suffering humanity.
Ø In recent times, there has been a gradual neglect towards the ethical
principles guiding a scientific research paper writing, and its publication.
Ø The misconduct in behavior may be intentional or may arise due to
ignorance.
Ø It not only affects other authors, reviewers, and editors, but also the common
man.
Ø As a research author, it’s absolutely essential to abreast oneself with these
ethical principles and avoid any scientific misconduct.
 Why publication ethics?
• Significant evolution of scholarly landscape
• Advances in publishing technology Ethical

• Development of open science Research

integrity
standards,
equity

• Increasing predatory publishing

Scholarly
• Globalization of academic activity publishing

• Increasing use of research assessment &

replication crisis.
 Debate
Roles and responsibilities of authors, editors,
publishers, societies, and funders in maintaining
trust and increasing transparency
 Editor roles &
responsibilities
Editing & proof reading Approving special issues Checking facts

Publication ethics Ensuring timely publication Handling manuscripts

Promoting the journal Set publication standards Using search engines & social
media
Acquisitions editing Arrange for copyright permissions Assign projects & monitor
deadlines
Check content for accuracy Conference presentations Contributes new ideas

Contributing editorials & Creating contents briefs Creating editorial calendars

relevant articles
 Roles of Editors
• They are responsible for the editorial content of the
journal
• For establishing the policies for authorship & submission
of manuscripts to the journal
• For establishing a process of constructive and prompt
evaluation of manuscripts
• They are responsible to their readers and to authors for
maintaining integrity and confidentiality of their work
during evaluation process
 Roles of Editors
• They have to work to improve the quality of submitted
manuscripts & be prepared to deal with errors &
scientific dishonesty and misuse of publication process
• They are responsible for the editorial policies of the
joournal & stand behind all decisions made by the
memebrs of editorial board
• They should balance the interests of readers, authors,
editorial board members, advertisers, media, etc.
• They are responsible for technical perfection & ethical
standards in all phases of publication process.
 PEER REVIEW
Ø The main goals of a good peer review are to provide
expert advise to the authors regarding the scientific
validity of the data & methods and help the editors in
their decision about the suitability of the paper for
publication.

Ø Editors must establish a system for deciding on the

fate of the manuscript

Ø Editors should not make decisions on the manuscripts

about which they have conflict of interest.
Organizations providing the guidelines
Ø International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE)
Ø Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

These guidelines are intended to be advisory rather

than prescriptive, and to evolve over time.
 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Ø It is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting integrity in
research and its publication.
Ø It is a non-statutory body which provides practical publication
ethics guidance for editors and publishers working in all
research disciplines.
Ø Founded by journal editors in 1997 (UK) as a response to
growing concerns about the integrity of submissions to medical
journals, COPE now has over 12,500 members from over 100
countries and all academic fields.
 Resources available for COPE
members
Forum Flowcharts Cases (600)

eLearning Sample
Webinars
Modules (10) Letters
Journal checklist
 Study design and ethical approval
Ø Laboratory and clinical research should be driven by protocol; pilot
studies should have a written rationale.
Ø Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions,
rather than just collection of data.
Ø Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and
collaborators, including, if appropriate, the participants.
Ø The final protocol should form part of the research record.
Ø Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and
collaborators, and on matters of authorship and publication, is
advised
 Study design and ethical approval
Ø Statistical issues should be considered early in study design,
including power calculations, to ensure there are neither too
few nor too many participants.
Ø Formal and documented ethical approval from an
appropriately constituted research ethics committee is
required for all studies involving people, medical records, and
anonymised human tissues.
Ø Use of human tissues in research should conform to the
highest ethical standards, such as those recommended by
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Ø Fully informed consent should always be sought. It may not always be
possible, however, and in such circumstances, an appropriately constituted
research ethics committee should decide if this is ethically acceptable.
Ø When participants are unable to give fully informed consent, research should
follow international guidelines, such as those of the Council for International
Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).
Ø Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and
regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements. International
standards vary.
Ø Formal supervision, usually the responsibility of the principal investigator,
should be provided for all research projects: this must include quality control,
and the frequent review and long term retention (may be up to 15 years) of
all records and primary outputs.
 Data should be appropriately analysed, but
inappropriate analysis does not necessarily
Data analysis amount to misconduct. Fabrication and
falsification of data do constitute misconduct

Ø All sources and methods used to obtain and analyse data, including any electronic
pre-processing, should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations should be provided
for any exclusions.
Ø Methods of analysis must be explained in detail, and referenced, if they are not in
common use.
Ø The post hoc analysis of subgroups is acceptable, as long as this is disclosed.
Failure to disclose that the analysis was post hoc is unacceptable.
Ø The discussion section of a paper should mention any issues of bias which have
been considered, and explain how they have been dealt with in the design and
interpretation of the study.
 Authorship disputes
• Disputes over authorship sometimes arise. Such disputes
can delay research, hinder publication and damage
relationships between collaborators.

• Disputes can be avoided with appropriate communication

and by obtaining agreements about authorship early in the
research process and regularly reviewing those agreements.
 AUTHOR
An author is a person who has made a substantial
contribution and fulfills the following three criteria:

Ø Substantial contribution to design,

Ø Data acquisition, analysis and interpretation.
Ø Drafting document or providing critical review of intellectual
content.
Ø Final approval of publication
 Authorship
Definition: There is no universally agreed definition of
authorship. As a minimum, authors should take
responsibility for a particular section of the study.
ü The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to
the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the
collection of data and other routine work.
ü If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular
individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.
ü To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to
decide early on in the planning of a research project who will be
credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
 AUTHORSHIP
Ø Authorship signifies that an individual has made a significant
contribution to the work and is accountable for it.
Ø It also carries significant value for a researcher. It is therefore
important that authorship is attributed accurately and
responsibly.
Ø Ensure that authors of research outputs are all those, and
only those, who have made a significant intellectual or
scholarly contribution to the research and its output, and that
they agree to be listed as an author
Ø Acknowledge those who have contributed to the research
Courtesy: University of Queensland
Author responsibilities
Ø All authors have responsibility for the validity, originality and
integrity of the work.
Ø Adhering to author eligibility criteria
Ø Ensuring accuracy of reporting and in assigning credit for work
contributed
Ø Reaching agreement on authorship in writing prior to
submission of a work for review
Ø Acknowledging the contributions of others, including funding
agencies
Ø Declaring conflicts of interest
 Author eligibility
Ø Authorship must be based on a substantive contribution to the
work.
Ø Researchers should discuss authorship at an early stage in a
research project to establish:Who will be listed as an author on
potential research outputs? The order in which the authors will be
listed? The responsibilities of each author
Ø Written records of authorship agreements should be kept and
reviewed periodically, such as when a researcher leaves/joins
Ø Authorship is not tied to position or profession and will not be
offered to those who do not meet the requirements; gift, ghost or
honorary authorship is unacceptable.
ü All authors must take public responsibility for the content of
their paper.

ü The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make

this difficult, but this can be resolved by the disclosure
of individual contributions.

ü Careful reading of the target journal’s “Advice to Authors” is

advised, in the light of current uncertainties.
 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ø A conflict of interest in research can be defined as a situation in which an
individual has “interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a
personal advantage.

Ø A conflict of interest in research can be defined as a situation in which an

individual has “interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a
personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance,
compromise the integrity of the research” (US National Academies of
Science, Integrity in Scientific Research, 2002, p. 38).

Ø More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers

participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company
where they or their relatives have a financial interest.
 Conflicts of interest
Ø Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent
and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and
editors.

Ø They have been described as those which, when revealed later,

would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.

Ø They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.

Ø “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding,

stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel,
consultancies and company support for staff.
Ø Yet, in some other cases, the mere disclosure of the conflict of interest is not
sufficient, and the individual has to completely abstain from being involved in that
activity.
 What is conflict of interest?
Ø A conflict of interest arises whenever there is any potential bias that could affect a
researcher's work.
Ø Conflicts of interest can include both financial and non-financial gains. For example
consider a peer reviewer who is evaluating a study that decreases the importance o
reviewer's own research. This could lead the reviewer to recommend rejection of the
study even if the study itself is original and robust.
Ø Conflict of interest due to financial gain is the most common one that authors face a
must disclose. It includes sources of funding, ownership of stocks in companies that
gain financially from the research, and acceptance of consulting fees or salary from
company that may benefit from the research, among others.
Ø For example, a review publication of research findings revealed that research
sponsorship contributes to publication bias because the sponsors often own the data,
making the data susceptible to manipulation and suppression."
 How to determine conflict
of interest?
The Integrity Coordinating Group has outlined an excellent list-known as the six Ps-that
researchers can use to determine whether a conflict of interest exists:

Public duty versus private interest: Do I or the research sponsor have personal or
financial interests that may conflict or be perceived to conflict with the interests and
welfare of the general public?

Potentialities: Could there be financial or other intellectual benefits for me, my

organization, or research sponsor that could cast doubts on my research and data?

Promises: Have I, my organization, or research sponsor made any promises or

commitment in relation to conducting or publishing the research? Do I stand to
gain or lose from the promised action/decision?
 The Six PS
Perception: How will my or my research sponsor's involvement in study conception,
study supervision, study design, research conduct, and manuscript writing be
perceived by others? Would any bias in research design, sample selection, data
reporting, data modification, and manuscript preparation be perceived as a conflict of
interest associated with me, my organization, or research sponsor? Are there any risks
associated with me, my organization, or research sponsor?

Proportionality: Does my or my research sponsor's involvement in all decisions

regarding the research appear to be fair and reasonable?

Presence of mind: What consequences will I face if I ignore or do not disclose a conflict
of interest? Can I give a reasonable answer if editors, reviewers, or readers question
my or my research sponsor's involvement?
Why authors must disclose conflicts of interest ?
Ø Almost all scientific and non-technical journals require authors to disclose potential or
actual conflicts of interest related to their study. Some journals, like Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), require authors to submit signed financial
disclosure statements. Other journals, like BMC Cancer, insist in their guidelines that
a separate section on conflict of interest be included in the manuscript and that any
details be provided in the covering letter.
Ø When declaring conflicts of interest, researchers are expected to provide detailed
information about relevant financial interests; grants, financial support, and funding
received from industry, and other intellectual benefits like filed or pending patents that
represent future financial gains. Researchers are also required to specify the role of
the funding organization or sponsor in the study design and conduct; data collection,
analysis, and interpretation; and manuscript drafting, review, and final approval.
Ø It is very important to inform journals about conflicts of interest. Journals may not
always publicly disclose conflicts of interest at the time of publishing the paper.
However, it any one questions the study or raises doubt that a conflict of interest
exists, the journal will publish the authors' conflict of interest disclosure and
mention that the authors had already informed the journal; this makes the
authors' conduct seem less suspicious.

Ø However, if the authors had not informed the journal and it is discovered that
conflicts of interest did indeed exist, the consequences can be serious, including
retraction of the paper and investigation by the authors affiliated institutes.

Ø Journals do not usually police conflicts of interest issues themselves. Rather, it is

the authors' affiliation (university or research institute) that creates, implements,
and monitors conflicts of interest policies for their faculty.
Ø Thus, authors are usually able to avoid conflict of interest scenarios
before their research is complete and their paper is submitted for
publication. When in doubt, researchers are advised to consult their
institution before approaching the journal.

When the potential for bias is disclosed, readers are aware of the situation
and will judge the research on its merits. On the other hand, failure to
disclose relevant financial/intellectual interests violates the public's trust, and
if such information is revealed subsequently, the credibility of the
researchers and the journal that publishes the work may be seriously
damaged.
 Peer review
Definition
• Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors
to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving
the study.
• Working methods vary from journal to journal, but
some use open procedures in which the name of the
reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or “edited”
report.
https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf
Ø It is ethically important that all listed authors qualify
for authorship and that all authors who do qualify be
listed. Equally important is that people who do not
qualify should not be listed as authors.
Ø The securing of funding, data collection, enrolling
patients, general group supervision or leadership of a
department does not alone qualify one for authorship.
Ø An alternative to authorship is acknowledgment of
contributors. Some journals will only allow up to six authors
with the remaining listed as contributors.

Ø This is commonly seen in multicenter randomized controlled

studies that have been recently published.

Ø Research groups can be listed as an author or coauthor with

specific recognition of the individuals done in an
acknowledgement
Action
Ø Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to
editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.

Ø Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of

interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
Ø Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from
the review and selection process for the relevant
submission.
 Action
(1) Suggestions from authors as to who might act as
reviewers are often useful, but there should be no obligation
on editors to use those suggested.
(2) The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a
manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and
this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked
(with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific
sections.
(3) The submitted manuscript should not be retained or
copied
 (4) Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data,
arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’
permission.
(5) Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous,
unbiased and justifiable reports.
(6) If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in
confidence to the editor.
(7) Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer
review, selection, and appeals processes.
(8) Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance
rates and publication time
 REDUNDANT PUBLICATION
Definition: Redundant publication occurs when two or more
papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis,
data, discussion points, or conclusions.
Action
Ø Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.
Ø Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not
preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made
at the time of submission.
Ø Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is
full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
Ø At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if
in a different language, and similar papers in press.
 PLAGIARISM
Definition
Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’
published and unpublished ideas, including research
grant applications to submission under “new” authorship
of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language.
It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing,
or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.
Action
(1) All sources should be disclosed, and if large
amounts of other people’s written or illustrative material is to be
used, permission must be sought.
Examples of plagiarism Why is it wrong?
Copying parts of a text word for word, It makes it seem like these are your own words.
without quotation marks
Paraphrasing a text by changing a few It makes it seem like you came up with the idea,
words or altering the sentence when in fact you just rephrased someone
structure, without citing the source else’s idea.
Giving incorrect information about a If readers can’t find the cited source, they can’t
source check the information themselves.
Quoting so much from a source that it Even with proper citations, you’re not making
makes up the majority of your text an original contribution if you rely so much on
someone else’s words.
Reusing work you’ve submitted Even though it’s your own work, the
for a previous assignment, reader should be informed that it’s
without citing yourself not completely new but comes from
previous research.
Submitting a text written entirely Not doing the work yourself is
by someone else (e.g., a paper academically dishonest, undermines
you bought from a ghostwriter) your learning, and is unfair to other
students.
 TYPES OF PLAGIARISM
Global plagiarism means passing off an entire text by
someone else as your own work.
Verbatim plagiarism means directly copying someone
else’s words.
Paraphrasing plagiarism means rephrasing someone
else’s ideas to present them as your own.
Patchwork plagiarism means stitching together parts of
different sources to create your text.
Self-plagiarism means recycling your own past work.
 Duties of editors
Ø Editors are the stewards of journals.
Ø They usually take over their journal from the previous
editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in
good shape.
Ø Most editors provide direction for the journal and
build a strong management team.
Ø They must consider and balance the interests of
authors, staff, owners, editorial board members,
advertisers and the media
 ACTIONS OF EDITOR
Ø Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication
should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality,
and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the merit of the
journal.

Ø Studies that challenge previous work published in the

journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.

Ø Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.

Ø All original studies should be peer reviewed before
publication, taking into full account possible bias due to
related or conflicting interests.

Ø Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.

Ø When a published paper is subsequently found to contain

major flaws, editors must accept responsibility for correcting
the record prominently and promptly.
 MEDIA RELATIONS
Journalists may attend scientific meetings at which
preliminary research findings are presented, leading
To their premature publication in the mass media.
ACTION
Ø Authors approached by the media should give as balanced an
account of their work as possible, ensuring that they point out
where evidence ends and speculation begins.
Ø Simultaneous publication in the mass media and a peer
reviewed journal is advised, as this usually means that enough
evidence and data have been provided to satisfy informed and
critical readers.
Ø Where this is not possible, authors should help journalists to
produce accurate reports, but refrain from supplying additional
data.
Ø All efforts should be made to ensure that patients who have
helped with the research should be informed of the results by
the authors before the mass media, especially if there are
clinical implications.
Ø Authors should be advised by the organisers if journalists are
to attend scientific meetings.
Ø Authors to be advised of any media policies operated by the
journal in which their work is to be published
 ADVERTISING
Ø Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant
income from advertising. Reprints may also be lucrative.
ACTION
Ø Editorial decisions must not be influenced by advertising
revenue or reprint potential: editorial and advertising
administration must be clearly separated.
Ø Advertisements that mislead must be refused, and editors
must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same
criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
Ø Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal
unless a correction is to be added
 HOW TO DEAL WITH
MISCONDUCT IN COPE?
Principles:
– The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause
others to regard as true that which is not true.
– The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on
the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the
researcher, author, editor, reviewer, or publisher involved.
– Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible
consequences, or by negligence. It is implicit, therefore, that best
practice requires complete honesty, with full disclosure.
– Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be
exhaustive.
Investigating Misconduct (as per COPE)

Ø Editors should not simply reject papers that raise

questions of misconduct. They are ethically obliged
to pursue the case. However, knowing how to
investigate and
respond to possible cases of misconduct is difficult.
Ø COPE is always willing to advise, but for legal
reasons, can only advise on anonymized cases.
Ø It is for the editor to decide what action to take.
 Serious Misconduct
Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously,
but they must recognize that they do not usually have either the legal
legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious cases.
Ø The editor must decide when to alert the employers of the accused
author(s).
Ø Some evidence is required, but if employers have a process for
investigating accusations as they are increasingly required to do
then editors do not need to assemble a complete case.
Ø Indeed, it may be ethically unsound for editors to do so, because
such action usually means consulting experts, so spreading abroad
serious questions about the author(s).
Ø If editors are presented with convincing evidence perhaps by reviewers of
serious misconduct, they should immediately pass this on to the
employers, notifying the author(s) that they are doing so.

Ø If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing

evidence, then editors should confidentially seek expert advice.

Ø If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then editors
should notify the employers.

Ø If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes

should proceed in the normal way.
Ø If presented with convincing evidence of serious misconduct, where there is
no employer to whom this can be referred, and the author(s) are registered
doctors, cases can be referred to the General Medical Council.
Ø If, however, there is no organization with the legitimacy and the means to
conduct an investigation, then the editor may decide that the case is
sufficiently important to warrant publishing something in the journal. Legal
advice will then be essential.
Ø If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted an adequate
investigation of a serious accusation, they may feel that publication of a
notice in the journal is warranted. Legal advice will be essential.
Ø Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of
serious misconduct.
 LESS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Ø Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve
employers in less serious cases of misconduct, such as
redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure
to declare conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence may
speak for itself, although it may be wise to appoint an
independent expert.

Ø Editors should remember that accusations of even minor

misconduct may have serious implications for the author(s),
and it may then be necessary to ask the employers to
investigate.
Ø Authors should be given the opportunity to respond
to any charge of minor misconduct.

Ø If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to

adopt some of the sanctions outlined below.
 Sanctions

Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are

ranked in approximate order of severity:
(1) A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there
appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
(2) A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
(3) A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
(4) Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
(5) An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
(6) Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or
institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
(7) Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper
from the scientific literature, informing other editors
and the indexing authorities.
(8) Reporting the case to the General Medical
Council, or other such authority or organisation
which can investigate and act with due process.
 COPE – In a nutshell
Ø COPE provides advice to editors and on all aspects of publication
ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and
publication misconduct.
Ø It also provides a forum for its members to discuss individual cases.

Ø COPE does not investigate individual cases but encourages editors

to ensure that cases are investigated by the appropriate authorities
(usually a research institution or employer).

Ø All COPE members are expected to apply COPE principles of

publication ethics outlined in the core practices.
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL EDITORS
Ø WAME was launched on March 16, 1995 in Bellagio, Lombardy, Italy after a 3
days conference.
Ø WAME is a non-profit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed
medical journals from countries around the world who seek to nurture
international cooperation among and education of medical journal editors.
WAME has more than 1915 members representing 1000 and above journals
from around 92 countries.
Ø WAME goals are to facilitate worldwide collaboration among editors of peer-
reviewed medical journals, to improve editorial standards and promote
professionalism in medical editing through learning, self-criticism and self-
regulation. It encourages research on the principles and practice of medical
editing
 PUBLICATION ETHICS-

Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical

Journals
 WAME
In accordance, Suzanne and Robert Fletcher (editors of Annals of Internal
Medicine at the time) spearheaded the preparation of an application to hold
a conference at the Rockefeller Foundation Conference and Study Center
in Bellagio, Italy, to consider the needs of medical journal editors globally
and to devise a plan to meet those needs.

The foundation approved the application in early 1994, and in March the
following year, 22 participants from 13 countries met in Bellagio to consider
the following:
• What are the common purposes of medical journal editors
and the set of skills editors need to achieve these purposes?
• What day-to-day obstacles and challenges do medical
editors encounter in trying to achieve their goals?
• Is there a need for global organization of medical journal
editors?
§ How can medical journal editors create a global electronic
communication network to discuss goals and needs and
share information, ideas, and solutions?
•
• How can medical journal editors use their position to promote high-quality
medical science, medical practice, and health in their regions and throughout
the world?

§ After considering the goals of biomedical journals, the group outlined the
challenges globally facing biomedical journal editors, peer-reviewed biomedical
journals, and scientific publishing.

• As a result, it proposed the:

creation of a global organization of editors of peer-reviewed journals, to be called
the World Association of Medical Editors . . . to facilitate worldwide cooperation
among editors of peer-reviewed medical journals to enhance the exchange of
educational information; to improve
 WAME`s Recommendations

Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

Study Design and Ethics
Authorship
Peer Review
Editorial Decisions
Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations
Plagiarism
Advertising
Responding to Allegations of Possible Misconduct
Relation of the Journal to the Sponsoring Society (if applicable)
 Study Design and Ethics
Good research should be well justified, well planned, and
appropriately designed, so that it can properly address the research
question. Statistical issues, including power calculations, should be
considered early in study design, to avoid futile studies that produce
subject risk without enrollment sufficient to answer the research
question. Outcomes should be specified at the start of the study.
Research should be conducted to high standards of quality control
and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced
for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment,
deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific
misconduct.
Ø Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board
(Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all
studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues.
Ø For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review
committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be
followed. If the study is judged exempt from review, a statement from the
committee should be required.
Ø Informed consent by participants should always be sought. If not possible, an
institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable.
Ø Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board
approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their
cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself.
Ø Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national, ethical,
and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements.

Ø Journal recommendations for preferred presentation and analysis of data

should be described in the Information for Contributors or Authors.

Ø Wherever possible, recommendations should be based on evidence about

methods of data presentation that are readable and most likely to be interpreted
correctly by readers.

Ø Editors should keep themselves informed of this research and adapt their
recommendations as it evolves.
Authorship
Journals should publish guidance about what constitutes authorship.
While there is no universally agreed definition of authorship,
contributors should be made aware of the guidelines developed by
the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work,

some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the
manuscript, but authorship roles can vary. Who will be an author, and in
what sequence, should be determined by the participants early in the
research process, to avoid disputes and misunderstandings which can
delay or prevent publication of a paper.
Ø For all manuscripts, the corresponding author should be required to provide information
on the specific contributions each author has made to the article. (Alternatively, since
authors may differ on the nature and magnitude of contributions, each author may be
asked to describe their own.)

Ø All authors are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and ethics of the work, but one
author must be identified who will reply if questions arise or more information is needed,
and who will take responsibility for the work as a whole. This description of author
contributions should be printed with the article.

Ø The authors are responsible for creating all components of the manuscript. If writers
are provided by the sponsoring or funding institution or corporation to draft or revise the
article, the name of the writer and their sponsoring organization must be provided..
Ø Their names and contributions will be provided with the acknowledgments.
Journals should discourage "honorary" authorship and should also try to
ensure that all those who qualify as authors are listed
Ø All authors must take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the
manuscript, and one author must be the guarantor and take responsibility
for the work as a whole.
Ø A growing trend among journals is to also require that for reports containing
original data, at least one author (eg, the principal investigator) should
indicate that she or he had full access to all the data in the study and takes
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data
analysis.
Ø This helps assure that authors, and not funding sources, have final say
over the analysis and reporting of their results.
 Peer Review
Ø Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and
the dissemination of sound science.
Ø Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research,
with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the
most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.
Ø Regular reviewers selected for the journal should be required to meet
minimum standards (as determined and promulgated by each
journal) regarding their background in original research, publication
of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of
manuscripts.
Ø Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific topic
addressed in the articles they review, and should be
selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge.

Ø Individuals who do not have such expertise should not be

reviewers, and there is no role for review of articles by
individuals who have a major competing interest in the
subject of the article (e.g. those working for a company
whose product was tested, its competitors, those with
special political or ideological agendas, etc.).
Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and
constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as
follows:
Ø The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and
weaknesses of study design and methodology

Ø The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the
author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.

Ø The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the

manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology,
results, and interpretation of the study.
Ø The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised
by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of
scientific conduct.
Ø The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions
for improvement of the manuscript.
Ø The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive
and professional
Ø The review should provide the editor the proper context and
perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision)
of the manuscript.
Journals should publish annual audits of
acceptance rates, publication intervals,
percentage of submissions sent out for
external peer review, and other performance
data.
 Editorial Decisions
Ø Decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance,
originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope and content.
Studies with negative results despite adequate power, or those
challenging previously published work, should receive equal
consideration.

Ø There should be an explicit written policy on the procedure that will

be followed if an author appeals a decision.

Ø If a published paper is subsequently found to have errors or major

flaws, the Editor should take responsibility for promptly correcting the
written record in the journal.
Ø The specific content of the correction may address whether the
errors originated with the author or the journal. The correction
should be listed in the table of contents to ensure that it is linked to
the article to which it pertains in public databases such as PubMed.

Ø Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of

editors should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal
performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment.
Individual performance data must be confidential. These
performance measures should also be used to assess changes in
process that might improve journal performance.
Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations
Ø Journals should state their policies on what type of content they accept for
publication. Journals should generally seek original work that has not been
previously published. Web and other electronic publication should be considered
the same as print publication for this purpose.

Ø Redundant publication occurs when multiple papers, without full cross reference
in the text, share the same data, or results.

Ø Republication of a paper in another language, or simultaneously in multiple

journals with different audiences, may be acceptable, provided that there is full
and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission of the
manuscript.
Ø At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers they
have authored, even if in a different language, similar papers in press, and any
closely related papers previously published or currently under review at another
journal.

Ø Because medical research findings are of increasing interest to the lay media,
journalists attend scientific meetings at which preliminary research findings are
presented, which can lead to their premature publication in the mass media.

Ø Publication of details not included in the abstract or meeting presentation is not

advised until the article has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, as this means that
enough detailed evidence has been provided to satisfy peer reviewers and editors.
Ø Where this is not possible, authors should help journalist to produce accurate
reports, but refrain from supplying additional data, if they wish their material
to be of sufficient original interest to warrant publication in peer-reviewed
journals.
Ø Authors should be discouraged from holding press conferences to publicize
their abstract results, as these results are preliminary and generally the
complete report has not yet undergone peer review. Journals should address
these concerns in their formal policies on originality of submitted materials.
Ø Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings (in
print or electronically) does not preclude subsequent submission for
publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission.
Ø The journal's embargo policy (on release of information to the press about
upcoming contents) should be made available.
 Plagiarism
Ø Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other
intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new
and original rather than derived from an existing source.

Ø The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions
of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts,
research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or
unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

Ø Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and should be addressed as such (see prior

section).
Ø Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their
previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without
specifically citing it formally in quotes.
Ø This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so
many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing
the Methods section of an article.
Ø Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the
publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific
misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly
"plagiarism." Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not regarded in the
same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals.
Ø If journals have developed a policy on this matter, it should be clearly stated for
authors.
 Advertising
Ø Many scientific journals derive a substantial income from advertising or reprints,
creating a potential conflict of interest. Editorial decisions should not be influenced
by advertising revenue or reprint potential. Editorial and advertising functions at
the journal should be independent. Advertisers and donors should have no control
over editorial material under any circumstances.

Ø Products or services being advertised should be germane to (a) the practice of

medicine, (b) medical education, or (c) health care delivery.

Ø Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading. Exaggerated or extravagantly

worded copy should not be allowed. Advertisements should not be accepted if they
appear to be indecent or offensive in either text or artwork, or contain negative
content of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.
 Responding to Allegations of Possible
Misconduct
Ø Journals should have a clear policy on handling concerns or
allegations about misconduct, which can arise regarding authors,
reviewers, editors, and others. Journals do not have the resources or
authority to conduct a formal judicial inquiry or arrive at a formal
conclusion regarding misconduct.
Ø That process is the role of the individual's employer, university,
granting agency, or regulatory body. However, journals do have a
responsibility to help protect the integrity of the public scientific record
by sharing reasonable concerns with authorities who can conduct such
an investigation.
 What can be done about conflict of
interest in medical journals?
Ø Conflicts of interest cannot be eliminated altogether but it can be managed so that it
has the smallest possible effects on journal content and credibility.

Ø The backbone of managing conflicts of interest is full written disclosure; without it,
nothing else is possible.

Ø Currently, authors may not reveal all of their competing interests and even if they
do, journals too often do not publish them so there is plenty of room for
improvement.

Ø Even so, disclosure alone is an imperfect remedy; editors still must determine
whether a conflict has sufficient potential to impair an individual’s objectivity such
that the article should not be published.
Ø Even more work may be needed on reviewers’ and editors competing
interests, given their critical role as gatekeepers for the medical literature.

Ø No statement will solve the conflict of interest problem, nor will it ever be
solved altogether.

Ø As understanding of the problem and its management evolves, journals

should be given latitude to establish their own standards, matching their
policies to the best standards of their discipline and culture.

Ø WAME believes journals should make these policies readily accessible to

everyone. All of us -- editors, authors, reviewers, and readers -- should be
paying more attention to conflict of interest than we have been.
 Recommendations on
Publication Ethics Policies for
Medical Journals
 WAME`s modus operandi
• To develop a global electronic communications network
• To develop an easily accessible library of key resources for health
sciences editors
• To create a global directory of medical journals and their editors
• To obtain funding to initiate the organization
• To plan for periodic world congresses of WAME
• To establish close liaison with existing editor groups
• To work with emerging regional groups of medical editors
• To establish relationships with world organizations to explore
collaborative initiatives
• To cooperate with the organizers of the International Congresses on
Peer Review.
 WAME in a nutshell
Ø WAME is a global nonprofit voluntary association of editors of
peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster
cooperation and communication among editors; improve
editorial standards; promote professionalism in medical
editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation;
and encourage research on the principles and practice of
medical editing.
Ø WAME develops policies and recommendations of best
practices for medical journal editors and has a syllabus for
editors that members are encouraged to follow.
OASPA National: UGC, CSIR,
INSA Publisher Polices:
Example-
Elsevier, IEEE
Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA)
Ø The international community for open access publishing

Ø Representing a diverse community of organisations engaged in open

scholarship, OASPA works to encourage and enable open access as the
predominant model of communication for scholarly outputs.

Ø OASPA mission of developing and disseminating solutions that advance open

access and ensure a diverse, vibrant, and healthy open access community.

Ø OASPA applies rigorous criteria and in-depth review to all members who
must then continue to exemplify high standards to remain part of OASPA.
 OASPA
Develop and disseminate solutions that advance open access and ensure a diverse, vibrant,
and healthy open access community, through:
Leadership and Development –create awareness of the benefits of OA publishing and
highlight policies that enhance and support OA publications.
Collaboration and Convening –convene community stakeholders to share experiences,
discuss problems and identify opportunities in the advancement of open access.
Setting Standards –promote best practice and ethical standards in open access, applying
rigorous criteria and in-depth review to membership and actively collaborating on important
standard-raising scholarly communication initiatives.
Promoting Innovation –contribute to the development and dissemination of the innovative
approaches to scholarly publishing and the related opportunities that OA content allows.
Supporting the OA Ecosystem –promote the development of diverse systems, business
models and policies that support OA publishing and encourage a vibrant and competitive marke
for pure OA publishing in the longer term.
Publication ethics and related editorial policies

Ø Journal’s policies on authorship and contributorship.

Ø How the journal will handle complaints and appeals.
Ø How the journal will handle allegations of research
misconduct.
Ø Journal’s policies on conflicts of interest.
Ø Journal’s policies on data sharing and reproducibility.
Ø Journal’s policy on ethical oversight.
Ø Journal’s policy on intellectual property.
Ø Journal’s options for post-publication discussions.
Ø Journal’s policies on corrections and retractions.
 OASPA in a nutshell
Ø OASPA is a diverse community of organizations engaged in open scholarship.

Ø As an organization, it works to encourage and enable open access as the

predominant model of communication for scholarly outputs.

Ø It is committed to its mission of developing and disseminating solutions that

advance open access and ensure a diverse, vibrant, and healthy open access
community.

Ø Its membership includes scholar-led and professional publishers of books and

journals across varied geographies and disciplines, as well as infrastructure and
other services.
Ø It applies rigorous criteria and in-depth review to all members, who must
continue to exemplify high standards to remain part of OASPA.
 INDIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY
The Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore was founded by Indian Physicist
and Nobel Laureate C. V. Raman, and was registered as a society on 27 April
1934. Inaugurated on 31 July 1934, it began with 65 founding fellows.

Ø Publish scientific proceedings, journals, memoirs, books and

other publications to inform the public and policies based on
evidences as and when, found desirable.
Ø To promote and liaise between Science, Social Science,
Industry and Humanities.
 INSA`s Policy of ethical
Teaching and research conduct
Ø The selection and training of students should involve a just and fair procedure. During
tests and interviews there can always be subjective judgements, however they must
avoid any considerations unrelated to the student's academic ability.
Ø During teaching, the dignity of the classroom/laboratory should always be maintained.
Cheating in tests and exams is never acceptable.
Ø Through their own actions, mentors must communicate positive ethical values and
professionalism to their students. In research projects, the Principal Investigator should
monitor the procedures and, if relevant, write down policies for recording data and
compiling results. These policies should be made known to all collaborators.
Ø Every institution must have fair procedures for proper use and sharing of equipment and
facilities.

https://www.ias.ac.in/public/Resources/News/NPAE.pdf
 Purity of Data
Ø Wherever any kind of experimental or data-driven work is involved, it is essential to
present the results correctly and honestly. One must carefully avoid all unacceptable
forms of data manipulation, for example adding or subtracting data points at will,
editing images to produce a false result, creating images artificially and presenting
them as data or using the same figure or table to describe different experiments.
The conclusions claimed in a research paper must follow honestly from the data
collected.
Ø It is understood that data often has to be processed. Details of
acceptable/unacceptable processing can be quite complex and will vary from
subject to subject. The relevant norms in the given area should be applied in each
case.
Ø Data fraud should be considered as a very serious offence as it harms the image of
the entire community and country. Deliberate falsification of data should attract
stringent punishment.
 Publications
Ø The list of authors in research papers, reviews, books, monographs or
policy documents should not be manipulated to give undue credit to those
who have not contributed (``honorary authorship’’), or deny credit to those
who have contributed sufficiently.
Ø In recent years there has been a rise in so-called ``predatory journals’’
which publish papers with minimal or no review, typically for a fee. It is
unethical to publish in journals of this nature. However, it is essential to
distinguish predatory journals from legitimate open-access journals which
may also charge a publication fee.
Ø When plagiarism is detected, it must be corrected by immediately
publishing a retraction or revision. Deliberate and/or serious forms of
plagiarism should entail strict punishment.
 Safety and Environment
Ø Academic work must not pose a risk or danger to people or
the environment.
Ø Guidelines and regulations concerning safety must be
formulated and carefully followed. This is especially
important for handling, storing and disposing of radioactive,
toxic or dangerous materials. Clearances and
permits/licenses, if required, must be obtained.
Ø Wherever relevant, due attention must be given to industrial
safety, sustainable development, sharing of intellectual
property rights, environmental loading and related issues.
 Bias and discrimination
Ø There must be no direct or indirect bias or discrimination against any individual
based on the ethnicities, genders, religions, castes, tribes, socioeconomic strata,
affiliations, backgrounds and sexual orientations

Ø The nation should aim for the full and equal participation of women in all
academic activities. It is everyone’s responsibility to support a genderneutral and
supportive environment to achieve this goal.

Ø Gender sensitivity should form an essential part of direct ethical training.

Ø Sexual misconduct and/or gender-based harassment in the workplace are totally

unacceptable. Legal structures and rules regarding how to deal with sexual
misconduct must be rigorously followed.
Ø Sexual misconduct and/or gender-based harassment in the
workplace are totally unacceptable. Legal structures and rules
regarding how to deal with sexual misconduct must be rigorously
followed.
Ø There also exist many forms of behavior which may not amount to
harassment in the legal sense but constitute gender-based
discrimination. Institutions should strive to ensure that their
members do not engage in such actions and should pro-actively
sensitize their community on these issues.
Ø Bullying in the workplace is a form of harassment that usually
targets the most vulnerable members. This can include abusive
language, frequent use of insults, threatening letters, sabotage of
others’ work, exploiting juniors to carry out personal errands etc.
Such actions are highly unethical and are not acceptable.
 Public interaction and outreach
Ø It is a duty, particularly for publicly funded academics, to
communicate the results of their work to the society on a
regular basis to educate the public of the fruits of their research
and to stimulate the aspirations of young students in schools
and colleges.
Ø While interacting with the press and members of the public, it is
essential for academics to avoid making exaggerated or false
claims. Statements made in public should be balanced and
professional. As practitioners of rational thinking and scientific
temper, academics are encouraged to voice their professional
opinions openly and without fear.
 Science administration
Ø High standards of professionalism and objectivity should be shown by leaders and officials
of institutions, departments and governmental agencies.
Ø Officials must do their best to ensure that a culture of professionalism permeates the
organization. Misuse of power is unethical and must be avoided. When committees are
constituted, they must involve members known for their fairness and balance rather than
personal loyalties or willingness to be influenced. Committees should be constituted keeping
diversity in mind and should have appropriate gender representation.
Ø Where policy opinions and decisions are involved, officials must stay clear of commercial,
social and political pressures. Conflicts of interest have to be avoided. When potential
conflicts are liable to occur, the official must make this known to the concerned colleagues.
Ø Infringement of the right to privacy by an academic institution is not ethical. Not only the
legal requirements but also more general professional standards for maintaining privacy
should apply
 Role of whistleblowers
Ø Individuals who complain about unethical practices
may find themselves in a difficult or sensitive
position. A negative impact on their career is one
among many possible risks following their actions.
It is important to safeguard the interests of the
whistleblower against any retaliatory repercussions.
Ø On the other hand, deliberately making false
accusations is itself highly unethical and must be
dealt with.
 Regulatory Norms
Implementation
§ It is essential to prevent unethical practices in the first place by suitable ethical
training, promoting a culture of professionalism and a clear statement that unethical
behavior is not tolerated in the institution. To this end, institutions must create or
adopt suitable ethics documents and impart direct ethical training to its staff through
lectures and interactive workshops on a regular basis, so that the community is fully
aware of these issues.
§ The detailed ethical guidelines for each institution must be made available to all
employees and should clearly spell out procedures for grievance redressal at that
institution.
§ Despite all this, if ethical violations are found then they must necessarily be
addressed on an urgent basis and for this purpose, it is recommended that the
institutions should set up a standing committee which ensures timely and impartial
redressal of all grievances alleged to arise out of policy violations.
 Handling policy violations
§ Institutions should employ formal mechanisms and procedures for
dealing with allegations of research misconduct
§ If a publication is found to contain plagiarism or manipulated data, the
institution must ensure that a correction or retraction is published in the
same place as the original paper

Institutions should endorse the following principles when implementing

disciplinary procedures:

Ø The responsibilities of those dealing with the allegation should be clear

and understood by all concerned parties.
Ø Measures should be in place to ensure an impartial and
independent investigation.
Ø The organization should safeguard the rights to confidentiality of the
concerned parties.
Ø All concerned parties should be informed of the allegation at an
appropriate stage in the proceedings.
Ø Anyone accused of misconduct should have the right to respond.
Ø A policy should be in place to ensure that no employee who makes
an allegation in good faith against another employee shall suffer a
detriment, but equally that disciplinary procedures are in place to
deal with malicious allegations.
Ø The allegation should be dealt with in a fair and timely manner.
Ø Proper records of the proceedings should be kept.
Ø The outcome should be made known as quickly as possible to
all concerned parties.
Ø Anyone found guilty of misconduct should have the right to an
appeal.
Ø Appropriate sanctions and disciplinary procedures should be in
place for cases when the allegation is upheld.
Ø If appropriate, efforts should be made to restore the reputation
of the accused party if the allegation is dismissed.
University Grants Commission (UGC), in its constant endeavour to ensure quality
and excellence in higher education, has taken the initiative of “Quality Mandate”
to continuously improve the quality in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India.
Moving ahead in this direction, the “Quality Mandate” of UGC, which emphasizes
the importance of promoting high-quality research and creating new knowledge
by faculty members, established a Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics
(CARE) with the main task of improving the quality of research in Indian
universities and to promote academic and research integrity as well as publication
ethics.

https://www.ugc.gov.in/e-book/Academic%20and%20Research%20Book_WEB.pdf
UGC Guidelines
 Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt. of India

Ø CSIR known for its cutting edge R&D knowledge base in diverse S&T
areas, is a contemporary R&D organization.
Ø CSIR has a dynamic network of 37 national laboratories, 39 outreach
centres, 1 Innovation Complex, and three units with a pan-India presence.
Ø CSIR covers a wide spectrum CSIR covers a wide spectrum of science
and technology – from oceanography, geophysics, chemicals, drugs,
genomics, biotechnology and nanotechnology to mining, aeronautics,
instrumentation, environmental engineering and information technology
CSIR Guidelines - 2019
CSIR Guidelines: In a Nutshell
CSIR Guidelines - 2019
CSIR Guidelines – 2019- Punishments
CSIR-Punishments
Scientific Investigation Board (SIB)

Source: CSIR
 Publishing ethics
General guidelines for handling allegations:
§ Authorship complaints
§ Plagiarism complaints Elsevier ’s AI author policy
§ Multiple, duplicate, concurrent states that authors are
publication/simultaneous submission allowed to use generative AI
§ Research results misappropriation and AI-assisted technologies
§ Allegations of research errors, falsification & in the writing process before
fabrication submission, but only to
§ Allegations of image duplication or improve the language and
manipulation readability of their paper and
§ Research standards violations with the appropriate
§ Undisclosed conflicts of interest disclosure,
§ Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by
reviewers
 IEEE
IEEE Xplore is the flagship digital platform for discovery and access to
scientific and technical content published by the IEEE (Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and its publishing partners.

Publishing Ethics
Authorship and Contributorship
IEEE considers individuals who meet all of the following criteria to be authors:
• Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or
experimental design, prototype development, and/or the analysis and interpretation of
data associated with the work contained in the article.
• Contributed to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content.
• Approved the final version of the article as accepted for publication, including
references.
Plagiarism and Redundant Publication
When submitting your article for publication to IEEE, it should:
• Contain original research that has not been published before.
• Not be submitted to any other publication while you await a peer review
decision.
Complaints and Appeals
• Allegations of misconduct are handled as described in the
Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB) Manual,
section 8.2.4.
• During the handling of the complaint, the identity of the persons
involved and the scope of the inquiry are kept confidential to the
extent practicable.
Human and Animal Research Disclosure
Authors of articles reporting on research involving human subjects or animals must
advise the Editor upon article submission whether or not an approval was obtained
from a relevant Review Board (or equivalent local/regional review). If such an approval
was obtained, the original source and reference must be provided to the Editor at
submission and appear in the article itself.

Conflicts of Interest
Authors who submit to this publication are required to disclose any potential sources of
conflict of interest in their submission. Conflict resolution procedures are outlined in the
PSPB Manual
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
The IEEE promotes the sharing of data and code to help with scientific
reproducibility. To make it convenient to share data and code of an article, IEEE
offers author tools such as IEEE Data Port and Code Ocean.
Ethical Oversight
See the IEEE Principles of Ethical Publishing section in the Introduction of the PSPB
Manual to find the journal policies on ethical oversight.

Copyright and Licensing - IEEE Copyright Form

A completed IEEE Copyright Form is required in order to publish an article in this
publication. Signing the IEEE Copyright Form transfers ownership of the article to
IEEE.
 Conclusions
• Publication ethics have to be followed by
authors,peer reviewers, editors,etc.
• There are several guidelines set by
several agencies that should be followed.
Thank you
Reference