ETHICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS,
JOURNAL EDITORS AND OTHER PARTNERS IN ADDICTION PUBLISHING
(ISAJE ETHICS GROUP)
1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance
to the authors, editors and other individuals who contribute
to scientific publishing in addiction journals regarding ethical
and procedural issues that affect the integrity of scientific
publishing. These guidelines were developed to deal with the
growing complexity of decisionmaking 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 of ethical
responsibility: the responsibilities of authors, and the responsibilities
of editors, journal staff and owners. They are intended to
be adapted to the needs of individual journals and authors.
We hope that they will be disseminated widely, endorsed by
editors, and refined by those who use them.
2.0 HOW THE GUIDELINES WERE DEVELOPED
Published and unpublished editorial guidelines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, was reviewed, as were publications
on research ethics and conflict of interest drafted by the
US 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.
Where a definition or guideline was adopted
more or less verbatim from a previous document, this is indicated
in the text using the following acronyms:
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
Note: in the text below, the definition or principle
for each topic is given first, followed by the suggested guidelines.
3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
The responsibilities of authors include but
are not limited to authorship credits, study design (including
ethical approval of research), conflict of interests, redundant
publication, and plagiarism.
3.1 AUTHORSHIP CREDITS
There is no universally agreed definition of
authorship, although attempts have been made. As a minimum,
authors should take responsibility for a particular section
of the study.
a) 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 research project or other scholarly publication a 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 substantive contribution as described
below. The lead author should periodically review the status
of authorship credits and substantive contributions with all
prospective collaborators to avoid disputes.
b) 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.
c) All authors must take public responsibility
for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature
of much research can make this difficult, but this can be
resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions. (COPE
2001)
d) 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)
e) 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)
f) Authors should not allow their name to be
used on a piece of work merely to add credibility to the content.
(COPE 2001)
3.2 STUDY DESIGN
Good research should be well justified, well
planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. (COPE)
a) 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. (COPE 2001)
b) 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)
c) 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)
d) Animal experiments require full compliance
with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles,
and local licensing arrangements. International standards
vary. (COPE 2001)
f) 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. (COPE 2001)
g) Applicable authors should give an assurance
that ethical safeguards have been met. (FARM 1997)
3.3 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
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 expert's position with respect to the
subject-matter being considered.
An apparent conflict of interest exists when
an interest would not necessarily influence the expert but
could result in the author's objectivity being questioned
by others. A potential conflict of interest exists with an
interest which any reasonable person could be uncertain whether
or not should be reported.
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 1977) It has also been
described as those situations or relationships 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)
Conflict of interest is not in itself wrong-doing. (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 or the
pharmaceutical industry, and with 'social aspect organizations'
that receive their primary support from these sources.
a) 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 any other entity of any
nature whatsoever, with commercial interests.
b) Declarations should cover financial or other
significant relations (e.g., consulting, speaker fees, corporate
advisory committee memberships, expert testimony given in
legal cases) of the author and the authors' immediate family
in the last five years 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)
c) Sources of funding for the study, review,
or other item should be declared (CSPI 2002) in the final
publication. (FARM 1997)
3.4 REDUNDANT PUBLICATION
Redundant publication occurs when two or more
papers, without full cross-reference, share any of the same
data. (COPE, 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 conferenceabstract. In all such instances,
authors should consult the editor. Authors are asked toprovide
the editor at the time of submission with copies of published
or submitted reports that are related to that submission.
a) 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)
b) 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)
c) 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.
d) 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)
3.5 PLAGIARISM
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.
a) 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)
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS, JOURNAL
STAFF AND JOURNAL OWNERS
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 conflict of
interest declaration, the peer review process, decision-making,
advertising, and how to deal with misconduct.
4.1 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We define 'conflict of interest' as a situation
in which professional, personal, or financial considerations
could be seen by a fair-minded person as potentially in conflict
with independence of the editor's or reviewer's judgement.
Conflict of interest is not in itself wrong-doing. (FARM 1997)
See definition provided above under Responsibilities of Authors
(section 3.3) for further details.
a) To protect the independence of the editorial
process, the owner or another body that may influence the
editorial process should be declared, and sources of support
from the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical or other relevant
interests should be published in the journal. (FARM 1997)
b) Journals should publish declarations on sources
of support received by a journal, and should maintain openness
in regard to connections which a journal or its editorial
staff may have established which could reasonably be construed
as conflict of interest. (FARM 1997)
c) When a journal publishes journal supplements,
an indication will be given of sources of support for their
production. (FARM 1997) Editors should also disclose relevant
conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from the review and
selection process for the relevant submission. (COPE 2001)
d) Conflicts of interests, where relevant, must
be declared to editors by reviewers. (COPE 2001)
To further enhance the integrity of science,
all scientific and biomedical editors are urged by the 'Integrity
in Science' project to adopt a complete disclosure policy
(CSPI 2002). Such a policy requires 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) Financial or other
significant relations (e.g., consulting, speaker fees, corporate
advisory committee memberships, expert testimony given in
legal cases) of the author and the authors' immediate family
in the last five years 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)
4.2 PEER REVIEW
Addiction journals should be committed to peer
review and we would expect research reports and scientific
reviews to go through this process. As regards the extent
to which other material will be so reviewed, we see that as
a matter for editorial discretion, but policies should be
declared. (FARM 1997) 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. (COPE 2001) Peer reviewers are external experts chosen
by editors to provide written opinions on the suitability
of a manuscript for publication. Reviewers are also 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)
a) 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. (COPE 2001)
b) 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.
(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
prepublication statements on the content of the submission.
Manuscripts sent to reviewers should be returned to the editor
or destroyed. (FARM 1997)
c) The submitted manuscript should not be retained
or copied. (COPE 2001)
d) Reviewers and editors should not make any
use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they
have the authors' permission. (COPE 2001)
e) Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate,
courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports. (COPE 2001)
g) If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should
write in confidence to the editor. (COPE 2001)
h) Journals should publish accurate descriptions
of their peer review, selection, and appeals processes. (COPE
2001)
i) Journals should also provide regular audits
of their acceptance rates and publication
times. (COPE 2001)
j) If an editor considers he or 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)
k) 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)
l) Refereeing journal supplements: An editorial
note will be published to indicate whether they have been
peer-reviewed. (FARM 1997)
4.3 EDITORIAL DECISION-MAKING
Journal editors are expected to be objective,
fair, unbiased, courteous, expeditious and to act in the best
interests of science, their journals, their readers and contributing
authors.
a) 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)
b) Studies that challenge previous work published
in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
(COPE 2001)
c) Studies reporting negative results should
not be excluded. (COPE 2001)
d) All original studies should be peer reviewed
before publication, taking into full account possible bias
due to related or conflicting interests. (COPE 2001)
e) Editors must treat all submitted papers as
confidential. (COPE 2001)
f) When a published paper is subsequently found
to contain major flaws, editors must accept responsibility
for correcting the record prominently and promptly. (COPE
2001)
g) Where misconduct is suspected, the editor
must write to the authors first before contacting the head
of the institution concerned. (COPE 2001)
4.4 ADVERTISING AND REPRINTS
Many scientific journals and meetings derive
significant income from advertising. Reprints may also be
lucrative. These financial considerations should not influence
the decision to accept and publish advertising material.
a) Editorial decisions must not be influenced
by advertising revenue or reprint potential: editorial and
advertising administration must be clearly separated. (COPE
2001)
b) 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. (COPE 2001)
c) Reprints should be published as they appear
in the journal unless a correction is to be added. (COPE 2001)
4.5 DEALING WITH SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT
Editors have a responsibility to report scientific
misconduct and to prevent its occurrence whenever possible.
'Scientific misconduct' or misconduct in science means fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, 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
(ICMJE), 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 occurred. Those responsibilities
rest with the institution where the work was conducted or
with the funding agency. (ORI 2000) Each journal should have
defined policies for response to attempted or actual instances
of duplicate publication, plagiarism, or scientific fraud.
(FARM 1997) The general principle confirming misconduct is
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, author, editor, reviewer
or publisher 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) Codes of practice
may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive. (COPE 2001)
4.5.1 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) It is for the editor to decide what
action to take. (COPE 2001) Reviewers are urged to report
any suspicions noticed in manuscripts they are reviewing.
Suspicious evidence would include 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)
4.5.2 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. (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 serious
misconduct. (COPE 2001)
One of the US Public Health Service administrative
actions requires the correction or retraction of any article
involved in the misconduct finding. (ORI 2000) If the request
for 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) ORI recommends that editors contact a responsible institutional
official when in possession of a suspect manuscript. By contacting
the responsible official at the awardee institution, the editor
or ORI activates an appropriate process for responding to
allegations of scientific misconduct. This process includes
an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient evidence
of misconduct to warrant a formal investigation and, if necessary,
an investigation to determine whether misconduct occurred,
and if so, by whom.
4.5.3 LESS SERIOUS 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) Authors should be given the opportunity
to respond to any charge of minor misconduct. (COPE 2001)
If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some
of the sanctions outlined below. (COPE 2001)
4.5.4 SANCTIONS
Sanctions may be applied separately or combined.
The following are ranked in approximate order of severity.
- A letter of explanation (and education) to
the authors, where there appears to be a genuine isunderstanding
of principles. (COPE 2001) 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)
4.5.5 HELPFUL EDITORIAL POLICIES
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:
a) Reporting suspect manuscripts: as a specific
step, editors should consider placing a notification in the
journal's Instructions to the Author. 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 the national body for research ethics.
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.
ORI also encourages research institutions to 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.' (ORI 2000)
b) 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.
c) Submission of data: authors could be explicitly
informed that their data may be requested during the review
process or if questions arise following publication.
d) Corrections/retractions: a useful policy
would 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 ICMJE 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.'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Williamson, Alex (1999) Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE): Guidelines on Good Publication Practice,
London: BMJ Publishing Group ISBN: 0727914715.
- White, C. (2001) The COPE Report 2001. London:
BMJ Publishing Group, pages 54-58.
- Drug and Alcohol Dependence (2001) Editors'
Code of Practice for dealing with ethical issues including
suspected cases of fraud and scientific misconduct. Revised:
10/8/01.
- 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. US Department
of Health and Human Services. http://ori.dhhs.gov
- The Farmington Consensus (1997) http://www.isaje.net
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
(2002) Open Letter http://www.cspinet.org/
Return to Contents
Page here
Chapter Nine
->
parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint v
|
