|
The purpose of this document is to enhance
the quality and protect the integrity of scientific publishing
in addiction specialty journals. It is written in the
interests of all those who engage in the scientific endeavor
and those who put trust in the truthfulness of the scientific
output. To that end, this document provides guidance to
authors, editors and other individuals regarding ethical
and procedural issues that affect the integrity of scientific
publishing.
These guidelines were developed to deal
with the growing complexity of decision-making in addiction
journal publishing, which often requires critical judgment
on the part of editors, reviewers, authors, publishers
and others with regard to ethical issues. The guidelines
address two broad areas: 1) the responsibilities of authors,
and 2) the responsibilities of editors, journal staff
and journal owners.
These guidelines are presented as an idealized
version of good ethical practice, and do not necessarily
represent the policies of the ISAJE member journals. There
may be national and cultural considerations that influence
the applicability of some of these guidelines to individual
journals. The guidelines should therefore be considered
provisional. They are intended to be adapted to the needs
of individual journals and authors, and should be modified
with experience and expanded when necessary to include
new challenges to ethical decision-making. We hope that
they will be used by editors, disseminated widely, and
refined by those who use them.
Published and unpublished editorial guidelines
and codes of ethics were obtained from the biomedical
literature and other sources. An important starting point
was the work of the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Journal
Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
COPE was established in 1997 to address breaches of research
and publication ethics. A voluntary body providing a discussion
forum and advice for scientific editors, it developed
a set of "guidelines on good publication practice"
that apply to editors, authors and other people involved
in scientific publishing. The COPE Guidelines were adapted
by one of the ISAJE member journals, Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, and this modified code was also consulted.
The Farmington Consensus, a set of principles drafted
by representatives of addiction journals, were reviewed,
as were publications on research ethics and conflict of
interest drafted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health,
Office of Research Integrity and by the "Integrity
in Science" project of the Center for Science in
the Public Interest (CSPI). A complete bibliography of
sources consulted by the ISAJE Ethics Committee is provided
at the end of this document. The following acronyms indicate
definitions or guidelines in the text that have been adopted
more or less verbatim from a previous document:
COPE Committee on Publication Ethics
FARM Farmington Consensus
DAD Drug and Alcohol Dependence
ORI Office of Research Integrity, US National Institutes
of Health
CSPI Center for Science in the Public Interest
The responsibilities of authors include
but are not limited to study design, ethical approval
of research, data analysis, authorship credits, conflict
of interests, redundant publication, and plagiarism.
3.1 Study Design and Ethical Approval
3.1.1 Definition or Principle
Research reported in addiction journals should be well
justified, well planned, appropriately designed, ethically
approved (COPE 2001), scrupulously analyzed and honestly
interpreted.
3.1.2 Guidelines
3.1.2.1 Formal and documented
ethical approval from an appropriately constituted
research ethics committee is required for all studies
involving people, medical records, and, where required,
anonymised human tissues (COPE 2001).
3.1.2.2 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 (COPE 2001).
3.1.2.3 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
(COPE 2001).
3.1.2.4 Animal experiments require full
compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory
principles, and local licensing arrangements. International
standards vary (COPE 2001).
3.1.2.5 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 of all records and primary
outputs (COPE 2001).
3.2 Authorship Credits
3.2.1 Definition or Principle
Authorship of a scientific report refers
to the origin of a literary production, not just to
the experimentation, data collection or other work that
led up to it. All persons named as authors should 1)
have made a major contribution to the work reported,
and 2) be prepared to take public responsibility for
its contents. According to an Editorial in the Annals
of Internal Medicine: "Responsibility means the
ability and willingness to defend the content of the
paper if it is challenged by readers. Public means that
authors are willing to carry out this responsibility
in a published defense, such as a signed letter to the
editor; private defense in private correspondence would
not reach the scientific public. Content means not simply
packages of data but also the conceptual framework on
which they are hung: the justification for a study or
clinical observations; the basis for the study design;
methods for collection of valid data: the analysis and
interpretation of the data; and the logic that led to
the conclusions" (Editor, 1982, p. 613).
3.2.2 Guidelines
3.2.2.1 Early agreement on the precise
roles of the contributors and collaborators, and on
matters of authorship and publication, is advised
(COPE 2001). All contributors to a research project
or other scholarly publication should be advised of
their authorship responsibilities and given the opportunity
to participate in the drafting of the manuscript.
Initial inclusion in the planning of a scientific
paper does not necessarily warrant authorship credit
unless the prospective author makes a substantive
contribution as described below. The lead author should
periodically review the status of authorship credits
and substantive contributions with all prospective
collaborators, in order to avoid disputes.
3.2.2.2 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. If
there is no task that can reasonably be attributed
to a particular individual, then that individual should
not be credited with authorship (COPE 2001). All listed
authors on a paper should have been personally and
substantially involved in the work leading to the
paper (FARM 1997). Involvement
in data collection and other routine tasks does not
necessarily warrant authorship credit. Similarly,
merely granting access to clinical samples or being
the head of a research unit or grant is not by itself
sufficient to justify a share in authorship.
3.2.2.3 All authors must take public
responsibility for the content of their paper. The
multidisciplinary nature of many research studies
can make this difficult, but this can be resolved
by the disclosure of individual contributions (COPE
2001).
3.2.2.4 If professional writers employed
by pharmaceutical companies, medical agencies, or
other parties have written the paper, then their names
should be included, and any conflicts of interest
declared (COPE 2001).
3.2.2.5 Authors should not allow their
name to be used on a piece of work merely to add credibility
to the content (COPE 2001).
3.3 Redundant Publication
3.3.1 Definition or Principle
Redundant publication occurs when two
or more papers, without full cross-reference, share
any of the same data (COPE 2001; DAD 2000). Authors
are expected to ensure that no significant part of the
submitted material has been published previously and
that it is not concurrently being considered by another
journal. An exception to this general position may be
made when previous publication has been limited to another
language, to local publication in report form, or to
publication of a conference abstract.
3.3.2 Guidelines
3.3.2.1 Publication in different papers
of subsets of data from the same population of subjects
in a study may be acceptable if publication in one
article would render it unreasonably long and complex.
In such cases, cross- referencing to the other relevant
publication(s) must occur (DAD 2000).
3.3.2.2 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 (COPE 2001).
3.3.2.3 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 (COPE 2001) and provided
that any necessary copyrights are respected.
3.3.2.4 At the time of submission,
authors should disclose details of related papers,
even if in a different language, and similar papers
in press (COPE 2001). When in doubt, authors should
provide the editor at the time of submission with
copies of published or submitted reports that are
related to that submission.
3.4 Plagiarism
3.4.1 Definition or Principle
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.
3.4.2 Guidelines
3.4.2.1 All sources should be disclosed
through appropriate citation or quotation conventions,
and if a large amount of other people's written or
illustrative material is to be used, permission must
be sought (COPE 2001). Legal definitions may vary
from country to country regarding plagiarism, copyright
and intellectual property rights. These should be
reviewed with the editor when there is any question.
3.5 Conflict of Interest
3.5.1 Definition or Principle
A conflict of interest is a situation
or relationship in which professional, personal, or
financial considerations could be seen by a fair-minded
person as potentially in conflict with independence
of judgement (FARM 1997). It has also been described
as a situation or relationship which, when revealed
later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or
deceived. A conflict may be personal, commercial, political,
academic or financial. "Financial" interests
may include employment, research funding, stock or share
ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies,
and company support for staff (COPE 2001). Conflict
of interest is not in itself wrongdoing (FARM 1997).
The potential for conflict of interest in the addiction
field is enhanced by any relationship or funding connected
with the tobacco industry, the alcohol beverage industry,
for-profit health care systems, private hospitals, the
pharmaceutical industry, and "social aspect organizations"
that receive their primary support from these sources.
There are three levels of conflict of
interest: real, apparent, and potential. A real conflict
of interest means that the author, or the administrative
unit with which the author has an employment relationship,
has a financial or other interest that could unduly
influence the author's position with respect to the
subject matter being considered. An apparent conflict
of interest exists when an interest would not necessarily
influence the author but could result in the author's
objectivity being questioned by others. A potential
conflict of interest exists with an interest that any
reasonable person could be uncertain whether or not
it should be reported.
3.5.2 Guidelines
3.5.2.1 Each author should declare
to the editor any interests that could constitute
a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest
with respect to his/her involvement in the publication,
between (1) commercial entities and the participant
personally, and (2) commercial entities and the administrative
unit with which the participant has an employment
relationship. "Commercial entity" refers
to any company, association (e.g., trade association),
organization, or other unit with commercial interests.
3.5.2.2 Although conflict of interest
policies may differ among journals, at a minimum declarations
to the editor should cover significant financial or
other relations (e.g., consulting, speaker fees) of
the author with companies, trade associations, unions,
or groups (including civic associations and public
interest groups) that may gain or lose financially
from the results or conclusions in the study, review,
editorial, or letter (CSPI 2002).
3.5.2.3 All sources of funding
for the study, review, or other item should be declared
in the final publication (CSPI 2002; FARM
1997). Funding sources should be described in a way
that allows an average reader to recognize potential
conflicts of interest.
Journal editors can have a significant influence
on the practice of addiction science, as well as treatment
and prevention. Editors need to promote the highest standards
of ethical practice in order to advance addiction science
and to maintain the trust of the people their journals
serve. The ethical responsibilities of editors include
the ethical decision-making, the peer review process,
advertising, conflict of interest, and how to deal with
scientific misconduct.
4.1 Ethical Decision-making
4.1.1 Definition or Principle
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 remit of the journal (COPE
2001).
4.1.2 Guidelines
4.1.2.1 All original studies should
be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full
account possible bias due to related or conflicting
interests (COPE 2001).
4.1.2.2 Studies that challenge previous
work published in the journal should be given an especially
sympathetic hearing (COPE 2001).
4.1.2.3 Studies reporting negative results
should not be excluded (COPE 2001).
4.1.2.4 Editors must treat all submitted
papers as confidential (COPE 2001).
4.1.2.5 When a published paper is subsequently
found to contain major flaws, editors must accept
responsibility for correcting the record prominently
and promptly (COPE 2001).
4.2 Peer Review
4.2.1 Definition or Principle
Addiction journals should be committed
to peer review, and both research reports and unsolicited
scientific reviews should go through this process. Invited
reviews and commentaries should also receive critical
peer comment. Peer reviewers are external experts chosen
by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim
of improving the study or scholarly report. Working
methods vary from journal to journal (COPE 2001). Reviewers
are expected to behave in an ethical manner and the
editor should consider breaches of the following guidelines
as instances of misconduct no less serious than comparable
actions by authors (DAD 2000).
4.2.2 Guidelines
4.2.2.1 Suggestions from authors as
to who might act as reviewers are often useful, but
editors should not be obligated to use those suggested
(COPE 2001).
4.2.2.2 Editors must treat all submitted
papers as confidential (COPE 2001). 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 to give opinions on specific
sections (COPE 2001). Referees should be told that
their access to the papers on which they have been
requested to comment is in strict confidence. Confidentiality
should not be broken by pre-publication statements
on the content of the submission. Manuscripts sent
to reviewers should be returned to the editor or destroyed
when the editorial process is complete (FARM 1997).
4.2.2.3 Reviewers and editors should
not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations,
unless they have the authors' permission (COPE 2001).
4.2.2.4 Reviewers should provide speedy,
accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports
(COPE 2001).
4.2.2.5 If reviewers suspect misconduct,
they should write in confidence to the editor (COPE
2001).
4.2.2.6 To enhance the quality and efficacy
of the peer review system, addiction journals should
audit the quality of peer review on a continuous basis,
and where possible, provide training to enhance the
quality of peer review (FARM 1997). Journals should
publish accurate descriptions of their peer review,
selection, and appeals processes (COPE 2001). Journals
should also provide regular audits of their acceptance
rates and publication times (COPE 2001).
4.2.2.7 In refereeing journal supplements,
an editorial note should be published to indicate
whether or not the papers have been peer-reviewed
(FARM 1997).
4.3 Advertising and reprints
4.3.1 Definition or Principle
Many scientific journals and meetings
derive significant income from advertising. Reprints
may also be lucrative. Financial considerations such
as these have the potential to create a real or apparent
conflict of interest.
4.3.2 Guidelines
4.3.2.1 Editorial decisions must not
be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential;
editorial and advertising administration must be clearly
separated (COPE 2001).
4.3.2.2 Advertisements that mislead
must be refused, and editors must be willing to publish
criticisms of advertised products and services according
to the same criteria used for material in the rest
of the journal (COPE 2001).
4.3.2.3 Reprints should be published
as they appear in the journal unless a correction
is to be added (COPE 2001).
4.4 Conflict of Interest
4.4.1 Definition or Principle
'Conflict of interest' is defined as a
situation in which professional, personal, or financial
considerations could be seen by a fair-minded person
as potentially in conflict with the reviewer's independence
of judgement (FARM 1997).
It has also been described as a situation or relationship
which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable
reader feel misled or deceived. Conflict of interest
is not in itself wrongdoing (FARM 1997). A conflict
may be personal, commercial, political, academic or
financial. "Financial" interests may include
employment, research funding, stock or share ownership,
payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, and company
support for staff (COPE 2001). The potential for conflict
of interest in the addiction field is enhanced by any
relationship or funding connected with the tobacco industry,
the alcohol beverage industry, for-profit health care
systems, private hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry,
and "social aspect organizations" that receive
their primary support from these sources.
There are three levels of conflict of
interest: real, apparent, and potential. A real conflict
of interest means that the editor, or the administrative
unit with which the editor has an employment relationship,
has a financial or other interest that could unduly
influence the editor's position with respect to the
subject matter being considered. An apparent conflict
of interest exists when an interest would not necessarily
influence the editor but could result in the editor's
objectivity being questioned by others. A potential
conflict of interest exists with an interest that any
reasonable person could be uncertain whether or not
it should be reported.
4.4.2 Guidelines
4.4.2.1 To protect the independence
of the editorial process, the owner or sponsoring
organization should be declared, and sources of support
from the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical or other
relevant interests should be published in the journal
(FARM 1997).
4.4.2.2 When a journal publishes journal
supplements, sources of support for their production
should be declared (FARM
1997).
4.4.2.3 Conflicts of interest, where
relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers,
authors, and reviewers (COPE 2001).
4.4.2.4 Editors should also disclose
relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. Sometimes
editors may need to withdraw from the review and selection
process for the relevant submission (COPE 2001). If
an editor considers he/she may be subject to Conflict
of Interest, advice from a co-editor may be sought
and a co-editor or guest editor should have full responsibility
for editing the manuscript (DAD 2000).
4.4.2.5 Referees should be asked to
declare to the editor if they have a conflict of interest
in relation to the material which they are invited
to review, and if in doubt they should consult the
editor.
4.4.2.6 To further enhance the integrity
of science, editors are urged to adopt a more complete
disclosure policy (CSPI 2002). Such a policy should
ask contributors to disclose to journal editors at
least the following information:
Sources of funding for the study, review,
or other item being published (CSPI 2002). Sources
of funding for the submitted paper must be declared
and should be published (FARM
1997).
Significant financial or other relations
(e.g., consulting, speaker fees, corporate advisory
committee memberships) of the author with companies,
trade associations, unions, or groups (including civic
associations and public interest groups) that may
gain or lose financially from the results or conclusions
in the study, review, editorial, or letter (CSPI 2002).
4.5 Dealing with Suspected Misconduct
4.5.1 Definition or Principle
"Scientific misconduct" includes
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undeclared conflict
of interest, or other practices that seriously deviate
from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific
community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
It does not include honest error or honest differences
in interpretations or judgments of data (ORI 2000).
According to the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors, editors have a responsibility to pursue
possible scientific misconduct in manuscripts submitted
to or published in their journals and to publish a retraction
of any fraudulent paper published in their journals.
However, editors are not responsible for conducting
a full investigation or deciding whether scientific
misconduct has occurred. Those responsibilities rest
with the institution where the work was conducted or
with the funding agency (ORI 2000). The general principle
confirming misconduct is the intention to cause others
to regard as true that which is not true (COPE 2001).
The examination of misconduct must therefore focus not
only on the particular act or omission, but also on
the intention of the researcher or author involved (COPE
2001).
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. (COPE
2001)
In the following sections we present a
set of guidelines that can be used by journal editors
to investigate and respond to instances of suspected
scientific misconduct. The accompanying flow chart describes
the sequence of activities and decision points that
should be followed before sanctions are imposed.
4.5.2 Guidelines
4.5.2.1 Investigating Misconduct. Because
editors are expected to uphold and preserve the integrity
of their journal, returning a manuscript that is suspect
for scientific misconduct to its author is a disservice
to the research community and may result in data being
published that could adversely affect public health
(ORI 2000). 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 (COPE 2001). Reviewers should be urged
to report any suspicions noticed in manuscripts they
are reviewing. Suspicious evidence includes but is
not limited to: text that is plagiarized, data that
are too perfect, and results that do not coincide
with the methods used to conduct the research (ORI
2000).
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 (COPE 2001).
The editor must decide when to alert
the employers of the accused author(s) (COPE 2001).
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 (COPE 2001).
If accusations of serious misconduct
are not accompanied by convincing evidence, then editors
should confidentially seek expert advice (COPE 2001).
If the experts raise serious questions about the research,
then editors should notify the employers (COPE 2001).
If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the
editorial processes should proceed in the normal way
(COPE 2001).
Authors should be given the opportunity
to respond to accusations of minor or serious misconduct
(COPE 2001). A defined appeals process should be developed
by each journal so that an independent "second
opinion" can be obtained to make sure that the
editor is following the journal's policy on scientific
misconduct.
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. (COPE 2001)
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 (COPE 2001).
4.5.2.2 Sanctions. If convinced of wrongdoing,
editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions outlined
below. Sanctions may be applied separately or combined.
The following are ranked in approximate order of severity.
(COPE 2001)
A letter of explanation (and education)
to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine
misunderstanding of principles. The editor must decide
when to alert the employers of the accused author(s).
(COPE 2001)
A letter of reprimand and warning as
to future conduct (COPE 2001).
A formal letter to the relevant head
of institution or funding body (COPE 2001).
Publication of a notice of redundant
publication or plagiarism (COPE 2001).
An editorial giving full details of
the misconduct (COPE 2001).
Refusal to accept future submissions
from the individual, unit, or institution responsible
for the misconduct, for a stated period (COPE 2001).
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the
paper from the scientific literature, informing other
editors and the indexing authorities (COPE 2001).
If a retraction is accepted by the editor, it should
be labeled as such, appear in a prominent section
of the journal, be listed in the table of contents,
and include in its heading the title and citation
of the original journal article. (ORI 2000)
4.5.2.3 Policies. Each journal should
have defined policies for response to attempted or
actual instances of duplicate publication, plagiarism,
or scientific fraud (FARM
1997). Experience in handling allegations of scientific
misconduct indicates that there are several policies
that editors could adopt that are likely to reduce
the submission and publication of fraudulent manuscripts:
reporting suspect manuscripts, co-author signatures,
submission of data, and corrections/retractions (ORI
2000).
Reporting Suspect Manuscripts: As a
specific step, editors should consider placing a notification
in the journal's "Instructions to the Author"
regarding reporting suspect manuscripts. This notification
would state that authors, by submitting a manuscript
to the journal, will abide by the journal's policy
and procedures for handling suspect manuscripts, including
procedures for notifying the author's institution
or funding agency. This notification should also state
that authors agree to cooperate with an institution
in investigating an allegation of scientific misconduct
involving their manuscript or article. Research institutions
should adopt similar policies which would direct institutional
staff to cooperate with journals that are investigating
suspect manuscripts or published papers. The Council
of Biology Editors, a professional association of
editors of many of the world's leading biomedical
journals, has examined this issue and its Editorial
Policy Board recently drafted language for the purpose
of aiding journals with this task. The policy statement
reads: "Should possible scientific misconduct
or dishonesty in research submitted for review by
the journal be suspected or alleged, the journal reserves
the right to forward any submitted manuscript to the
sponsoring or funding institution or other appropriate
authority for investigation. The journal recognizes
the responsibility to ensure that the question is
appropriately pursued, but does not undertake the
actual investigation or make determinations of misconduct"
(Personal communication to ORI staff from chair, Editorial
Policy Board, CBE, July 1998). (ORI 2000)
Co-author Signatures: Some misconduct
cases have involved the publication of manuscripts
without the knowledge or consent of all named co-authors.
Requiring all co-authors to sign-off on the manuscript
validates their accountability for the content of
the manuscript and reduces the probability that a
fraudulent manuscript will be submitted. (ORI 2000)
Submission of Data: Authors could be
explicitly informed that their data may be requested
during the review process or if questions arise following
publication. (ORI 2000)
Corrections/Retractions: The policy
should specify who may request a correction or retraction,
the criteria for determining whether a correction
or retraction would be published, and the form, content
and location of the notice. Editors are urged to incorporate
the standard for retractions suggested by the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors, in their policy
on corrections and retractions: "The retraction,
so labeled, should appear in a prominent section of
the journal, be listed in the contents page, and include
in its heading the title of the original article.
It should not simply be a letter to the editor. Ideally,
the first author should be the same in the retraction
as in the article, although under certain circumstances
the editor may accept retractions by other responsible
persons. The text of the retraction should explain
why the article is being retracted and include a bibliographic
reference to it" (International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors, Uniform Requirements for
Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and Supplemental
Statements, 1994, p.25). (ORI 2000)
Other assurances: To prevent or minimize
concerns about ethical issues, editors should require
that applicable authors give an assurance that ethical
safeguards have been met (FARM
1997), that all authors have made substantive contributions
to the preparation of a manuscript, and that the paper
has not been published previously in whole or in part.
In addition, the specific contribution of each author
of a published paper (conception and design; analysis
and interpretation of the data; drafting of the article;
critical revision of the article for intellectual
contents; final approval of the article; statistical
expertise; administrative, technical or logistical
support; and collection and assembly of data) should
be declared to the journal editor (CSPI 2002).
Williamson, Alex, Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE): Guidelines on Good Publication Practice,
BMJ Publishing Group 1999. ISBN: 0727914715;
Blackwell
Publishing Best Practice Guide on Publication Ethics
White, C. The COPE Report 2001. BMJ Publishing
Group, London 2001, pages 54-58
Drug and Alcohol Dependence: Editors' Code
of Practice for dealing with ethical issues including
suspected cases of fraud and scientific misconduct, Revised:
10/8/01. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/drugalcdep
Public Health Leadership Society (PHLS)
(2000): Public Health Code of Ethics.
American Public Health Association (APHA):
http://www.apha.org/codeofethics/ethics.htm
Office of Research Integrity, Office of
Public Health and Science (2000): Managing Allegations
of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://ori.dhhs.gov
The Farmington Consensus,
1997
Center for Science in the Public Interest
(2002) Open Letter.
Editor (1982) Annals of Internal Medicine,
p. 613.
---------------------- -----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|