Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics - A Publisher's Perspective Second edition
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics A Publisher’s Perspective Second Edition © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CC BY-NC 4.0
Contents
Best Practice
Introduction 1 Guidelines on
Aims and scope 1 Publishing Ethics
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 1
Ethics Helpdesk at Wiley 1
First: Speak with your publisher 2 Introduction
Research integrity 2
Misconduct 2 If you are reading a printed version of this document, you will not have access to embedded urls
Whistle blowing 2 as reference points. To access these, please visit the HTML version of the document online at
http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.
Fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation 3
Plagiarism 3
Aims and scope
Duplicate and redundant publication 3
These guidelines present a comprehensive update to the Wiley publication ethics guidelines first
Sanctions 4
published in 2006.
Research ethics in journal articles 5
Our aim for these guidelines remains to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a
Human rights, privacy, and confidentiality 5 summary of best practice guidance from leading organizations around the world. Our guidelines are
Cultures and heritage 5 written for societies, editors, authors, librarians, students, funders, corporations, and journalists.
Registering clinical trials 6 To write this new edition, we recruited contributions from a multidisciplinary and regionally diverse
Animals in research 6 group of experts within and outside Wiley. We hope that our multidisciplinary approach has made
these guidelines unique and useful to many. We recognize that different disciplines have different
Biosecurity 7
practices and traditions and that one size does not necessarily fit all. Where guidelines have
Reporting guidelines 7 particular application to one discipline or group of disciplines, we have aimed to identify this clearly
Editorial standards and processes 7 in the text.
Authorship 7
Authorship disputes 9 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Funding 9 Wiley provides membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as an option for all of
Peer review 9 its journal editors. At the time of writing COPE serves more than 8500 members around the world
Timing of publication 10 with practical tools, e-learning, seminars, and much more. Many editors and publishers find COPE’s
tools indispensable. We have listed specific COPE tools amongst the many ethics resources that
Editors and journal staff as authors 10
are available to editors wherever relevant throughout our guidelines. We have reproduced the
Conflicts of interest 10 COPE flowcharts and sample letters with permission from COPE in full in the print version of these
Libel and defamation 11 guidelines.
Editorial independence and commercial issues 11 COPE has published two codes of conduct, one for publishers and one for editors:
Academic debate 12 • Code of Conduct for Editors
Appeals 12 • Code of Conduct for Publishers
Corrections 12
Retractions and Expressions of Concern 13
Ethics Helpdesk at Wiley
Withdrawal of articles 13
If you are a Wiley editor or author looking for help then please make your first port of call your
Data protection legislation 13
Wiley publisher or journal publishing manager. Otherwise, and if your query relates to matters
Copyright and intellectual property 13 addressed by or related to these guidelines, please contact the Wiley Ethics Helpdesk. The Helpdesk
Resources for responsible publication policies and procedures 15 is an email address from which we direct incoming queries to the person at Wiley who has the most
appropriate expertise: publication.ethics@wiley.com.
Flowcharts 21
Sample letters 39
Contributors 53
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 1First: Speak with your publisher In most instances journals should request investigations Fabrication, falsification, Plagiarism
by research institutions, employers, funders, or the and image manipulation
Journal publishing is, at its best, a team effort. Handling A discussion of plagiarism is provided by the US Office of
relevant national statutory body (for example, the Austrian
ethical problems relating to journals is no exception, and Changes to images can create misleading results when Research Integrity in its policy on plagiarism. Included in
Agency for Research Integrity) rather than conducting
publication ethics issues often give rise to or involve legal research data are collected as images. Thus inappropriate this discussion is the general working definition:
investigations themselves. However, it can be appropriate
issues. We suggest that journals use these guidelines to image manipulation is one form of fabrication or
for some cases of misconduct (for example, plagiarism or “ORI considers plagiarism to include both the theft
establish clear policies and procedures, and as an initial falsification that journals can identify.
image manipulation) to be investigated and acted upon or misappropriation of intellectual property and the
point of reference when issues arise. by a journal publishing team, but even then the journal It may, however, be legitimate and even necessary to edit substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s
As a first step to addressing any potentially serious problem publishing team should inform the relevant parties. images. For example, the selective enlargement of part of work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes.”
we suggest that editors, publishers, and other journal team an artwork may be needed to reveal features that would
Editors should work with their publisher to consider relevant Editors can help educate about and prevent plagiarism (as
members discuss the issues they are facing. We suggest not otherwise be visible, and editing of video data may be
regulations, and to decide whether and how to refer cases well as redundant or duplicate publication) by screening
that these discussions happen before taking any further needed to protect the privacy of participants.
of suspected misconduct, and what action to take. submitted manuscripts. Journals should explain in their
action, and that legal advice is sought where needed and The six CLIP (Clinical and Laboratory Images in instructions to authors how submitted manuscripts are
in particular where issues involve potential defamation, • Cases of suspected misconduct should be handled
Publications) principles present guidance for documenting screened for duplicated text and possible plagiarism.
breach of contract, or copyright infringement. following established processes, for example, those
and publishing clinical and laboratory images. The Council CrossCheck is one of the screening services available
presented in the COPE Flowcharts.
Initial conversations may indicate the need to carry out of Science Editors discusses image manipulation in its for this purpose. Journals may consider the following text,
further investigation or to widen discussions to: • Sample letters from COPE (login required) and Sample white paper on research integrity. The Office of Research adapted from the CrossCheck website:
Correspondence for Editors from Council of Science Integrity provides forensic tools for quick examination of
• Involve relevant institutions, employers, or funders (which “CrossCheck is a multi-publisher initiative to screen
Editors may be useful scientific images and samples.
are the appropriate bodies to conduct most investigations published and submitted content for originality.
of serious misconduct). • Cases should be handled at a speed that allows Journals can help educate about image manipulation and, This journal uses the iThenticate software to
appropriate care to be taken. where appropriate, might check images. We suggest detect instances of overlapping and similar text in
• Consult with other journal editors who are involved (in that journals ask authors to declare where manipulations submitted manuscripts. The ‘CrossCheck Deposited’
cases where coordinated efforts may be useful, being • Investigations may lead to retractions, expressions of
concern, or other sanctions. These are discussed in the have been made. We suggest that journals explain in their or ‘CrossCheck Depositor’ logos indicate that
mindful of sensitivities around confidentiality). instructions for authors that: this journal has committed to actively combating
sections that follow.
• Seek advice from other editors via a COPE Forum plagiarism. To find out more about CrossCheck visit
Editors looking for advice about suspected misconduct • Specific features within an image should not be
(COPE maintains a record of cases discussed at the http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html.”
should first speak with their publisher, and revisit the enhanced, obscured, removed, moved, or introduced.
COPE Forum since 1997). The sample text is here.
relevant employer and funder policies regarding the • Original unprocessed images must be provided by
reporting and investigation of research misconduct. authors should any indication of enhancement be
Research integrity There are many sources of high-quality information identified. It may be helpful for journals to suggest Duplicate and redundant publication
available to support investigations. For example COPE that original unprocessed images should be submitted The Council of Science Editors incorporates a definition of
Misconduct alongside any images that have been processed.
provides editors with independent advice from other editors duplicate or redundant publication into its White Paper on
Research misconduct is defined in the US Federal Policy on about difficult cases via the COPE Forum. Through its • Adjustments to brightness or contrast are only acceptable Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:
Research Misconduct: case archive COPE enables editors to learn from previous if they apply equally across the entire image and are “[A]uthors must avoid duplicate publication,
“Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, cases. The US Office of Research Integrity has published applied equally to controls, and as long as they do which is reproducing verbatim content from
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, “Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information their other publications.”
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting Guidance Document for Editors”. The European Association present in the information originally captured.
research results.” for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuCheMS) has Wiley has also published information about duplicate
• Excessive manipulations, such as processing to publication.
published “Ethical Guidelines for Publications in Journals
The international models for responding to misconduct emphasize one region in the image at the expense
and Reviews.”
are discussed by the Council of Science Editors in their of others, are inappropriate, as is emphasizing Journals should establish processes to help them avoid
recommendations for identification of misconduct and experimental data relative to the control. duplicate and redundant publication. The Copyright
guidelines for action. The World Association of Medical Transfer Agreement, Exclusive License Agreement or the
Whistle blowing • Nonlinear adjustments or deleting portions of a recording
Editors makes suggestions about responding to allegations Open Access Agreement, one of which must be submitted
Allegations of suspected misconduct that have specific, must be disclosed in a figure legend. before publication in any Wiley journal, requires signature
of misconduct. The Singapore Statement on Research
Integrity, written during the Second World Congress on detailed evidence to support the claim should be • Constructing figures from different gels, fields, exposures, from the corresponding author to warrant that the article is
Research Integrity, presents “principles and professional investigated appropriately, whether they are raised and experimental series is discouraged. When this is an original work, has not been published before, and is
responsibilities that are fundamental to the integrity of anonymously or by named “whistle-blowers.” necessary the component parts of composite images not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final
research wherever it is undertaken”. should be indicated by dividing lines clearly demarcated form.
More information about how editors can respond to
communications from whistle-blowers is available from
in the figure, and described in the legend. • Journals should remind authors that duplicate publication
Members of journal publishing teams have an important
role to play in addressing potential cases of data COPE. These recommendations are based on guidance is not acceptable.
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, developed at the Journal of Cell Biology and Rossner • Journals should require that any previously published
unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, and Yamada’s discussion. Cromey discusses image
results, including numerical information and figures or
redundant or duplicate publication, and undeclared manipulation in “Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines images, are labeled to make it clear where they were
conflicts of interest. for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital
previously reported.
images”.
page 2 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 3• Papers, particularly medical research papers, that access to internal information for the whole journal family, Research ethics in journal articles from more than just the index case; see “Deal done over
present new analyses of results that have already been detection aids or mechanisms should be put in place for HeLa cell Line.” The CARE guidelines are useful for editors
published (for example, subgroup analyses) should editors to use as part of their editorial office system. It is good practice for journals to adopt publication policies who publish case reports.
identify the primary data source, and include a full to ensure that ethical and responsible research is published,
If concurrent or multiple submissions are detected, the editor and that all necessary consents and approvals have In the social sciences and humanities, there are numerous
reference to the related primary publications.
should work with their publisher and refer to the COPE been obtained from authors to publish their work. These ethical guidelines for researchers working with human
Journals from different disciplines vary in their approach flowchart on redundant publication in a submitted manuscript. publication policies might include the items presented in the participants. Social science and humanities researchers
to pre-print servers. Many biomedical journals would sections below. regularly work with audio and video materials gathered
consider posting an article to a pre-print server to render Duplicate information published in translations in public places where there is no reasonable expectation
any subsequent journal publication redundant. Thus an Journals may choose to publish materials that have been Human rights, privacy, of privacy. They also use materials derived from
article submitted for consideration after having been posted accurately translated from an original publication in a and confidentiality broadcast sources, as in some political science or cultural
to a pre-print server would be rejected. However, many different language. Journals that translate and publish For manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human studies work, where copyright must be addressed but
researchers working in physics, mathematics, computer material that has been published elsewhere should ensure participants, it is suggested that journals require authors where consent issues do not arise. However, wherever
science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and that they have appropriate permission. They should to provide a statement identifying the ethics committee appropriate, social scientists are also responsible for
statistics post their articles to arXiv before submitting indicate clearly that the material has been translated and that approved the study, and that the study conforms to protecting the confidentiality of human participants, and
an article successfully to a journal for peer review and republished, and should identify the original source of the recognized standards, for example: obtaining informed consent from all participants by openly
publication. Journals should establish a policy about pre- material. communicating any and all information that is likely to
print servers and declare this in their instructions for authors. • Declaration of Helsinki influence their willingness to participate (for example,
Any previous publication should be disclosed in the paper. Sanctions • US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects sponsorship, purpose and anticipated outcomes, and
Wiley has published advice about sanctions in which we possible consequences that publication of the research may
The following types of “prior publication” do not present • European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good
refer to the COPE guidelines. Journals may, for example, have for participants). Guidelines include those from the
cause for concerns about duplicate or redundant Clinical Practice
publish a retraction, may inform the author’s institution, American Sociological Association, International Society of
publication:
and may refuse for a time to consider future work from the These standards encourage authors to conduct studies Ethnobiology, and American Anthropological Association.
• Abstracts and posters presented during sessions at authors. in a way that ensures adequate steps have been taken For social research data the Association of Social
conferences. to minimize harm to participants, to avoid coercion or
• Before considering sanctions editors must consult with Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth suggests
• Results presented at meetings (for example, to inform exploitation, to protect confidentiality, and to minimize the in its “Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice” that it
their publisher, particularly for legal advice, and also with
investigators or participants about findings). risk of physical and psychological harm. is not always possible or necessary to gain written consent
the journal owner (for example, a scholarly society).
Across the scholarly disciplines there are variations in to publish, particularly when researchers are working with
• Results in databases and clinical trials registries (data • Sanctions should be applied consistently and only after
practice around privacy and confidentiality, relative to the people with limited literacy or in cultures where formal
without interpretation, discussion, context or conclusions careful consideration.
risks of participation and the reasonable expectations of bureaucratic procedures are problematic. However, it
in the form of tables and text to describe data/
• Before imposing sanctions, journals should formally participants. remains prudent for journals to ask authors to provide
information).
define the conditions in which they will apply (and evidence that they have obtained informed consent.
• Dissertations and theses in university archives. In the biomedical sciences, editors should consider The American Anthropological Association’s statement
remove) sanctions, and the processes they will use
only publishing information and images from individual recommends that:
If a paper is published and later found to be redundant, to do this.
participants where the authors have obtained the
the editor should refer to the COPE Flowcharts and should individual’s free prior informed consent. International “Informed consent does not necessarily imply or
consider working with their publisher to retract the duplicate Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidance says: require a particular written or signed form. It is the
paper. quality of the consent, not its format, which
“Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. is relevant.”
Text recycling Informed consent should be obtained if there is
any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For Exceptional cases might arise where gaining an
COPE hosted a discussion about text recycling. The US Office
example, masking the eye region in photographs of individual’s free prior informed consent is not possible but
of Research Integrity has also published on this topic in its
patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.” where publishing an individual’s information or image can
document “Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other
be demonstrated to have a genuine public health interest
questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing.” The best policy is for journals to require that authors or to serve an important public need. In cases like this,
Journals may find it useful to establish a policy about how confirm whether explicit written consent to publish has before taking any action editors should seek and follow
much, if any, and under what circumstances they consider been received from any people described (for example, in counsel from the journal owner, the publisher, and/or legal
it acceptable to recycle text and results between articles. case reports), shown in still or moving images, or whose professionals.
This may be important, for example, for authors who wish voices are recorded. In the case of technical images (for
to communicate results from a research project to multiple example, radiographs or micrographs), editors should also
audiences. In this instance, full or partial results might be ensure that all information that could identify the subject Cultures and heritage
recycled for legitimate reasons, although the discussion and has been removed from the image. For voices or images
of any human subject, permission according to applicable US Office for Human Research Protection has a searchable
conclusions would be different. database of independent community institutional review
national laws must be sought from research participants
Duplicate submission before recording. In many jurisdictions it is a requirement boards that approve research and publication of culturally
that formal copyright clearance is obtained to publish sensitive materials. More information is provided in
Journals should consider how they might detect concurrent “Principles and Procedures: Conducting Research in a
any video or audio recordings. When publishing genetic
or multiple submissions. For example, in cases where Maori Context” from Waikato Institute of Technology and
sequences or family genograms editors may need consent
journals are part of an editorial group or portfolio with
page 4 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 5“Community IRBs and Research Review Boards: Shaping Animals in research Biosecurity Editorial standards and processes
the Future of Community-Engaged Research” from Albert
Research involving animals should be conducted with the Journals should ask authors to inform them at the time Authorship
Einstein College of Medicine.
same rigor as research in humans. Journals can encourage of manuscript submission if their study has potential for
There is recognition of increasing innovation in the authors to implement the 3Rs principles: both benevolent and malevolent application. This is often The list of authors should accurately illustrate who
management of joint copyright in relation to intercultural referred to as “dual use research.” contributed to the work and how. All published work should
“The 3Rs are a widely accepted ethical framework be attributed to one or more authors. All those listed as
research, to enable appropriate legal acknowledgment of
for conducting scientific experiments using animals Journals should ask these authors to conform to the National authors should qualify for authorship by standards that are
intellectual property in attribution and acknowledgment.
humanely: Replacement – use of non-animal Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) guidelines appropriate for the scholarly community that the journal
This is presented in the section on authorship which follows.
methods; Reduction – methods which reduce the for Dual Use Life Sciences Research. The June 2007 NSABB serves. We suggest using the criteria developed by the
Editors should consider any sensitivities when publishing number of animals used; Refinement – methods report presents a useful description and discussion of “dual International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which
images of objects that might have cultural significance or which improve animal welfare.” use research of concern.” are presented below and can be found online.
cause offence (for example, religious texts or historical
–National Centre for the Replacement, • Journals should adopt clear authorship criteria, and
events). In addition:
Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research explain these criteria in their instructions to authors.
• Editors should be conscious of the ethics surrounding
Reporting guidelines
The International Council for Laboratory Animal Science • Journals should require authors to confirm that they
publication of images of human remains, and should Accurate and complete reporting enables readers to fully
has published ethical guidelines for editors and reviewers. and their co-authors all meet the journal’s criteria for
recognize that human remains are perceived differently appraise research, replicate it, and use it. Editors should
in different cultures. Images of human remains should Journals should encourage authors to adhere to animal encourage authors to follow their discipline’s guidelines authorship, and that nobody who meets these criteria has
not be published without consideration of the views research reporting standards, for example the ARRIVE for accurate and complete reporting of research. Editors, been omitted from the list.
of any demonstrated genealogical descendants or reporting guidelines, which describe the details journals working with peer reviewers, should ensure that authors • Journals should consider requesting that authors provide
affiliated cultural communities, if feasible. In cases where should require from authors regarding: provide the information readers need to evaluate the a short description of each author’s contribution in an
descendants or affiliated cultural communities cannot methods and results, so that readers can reach their own Acknowledgment.
• Study design and statistical analysis.
be contacted, images of human remains should not be conclusions.
published without consultation with and permission from • Experimental procedures. • Journals should request that contributions from anyone
• In health research, the EQUATOR Network promotes who does not meet the criteria for authorship are
the curating institution or relevant stakeholder. For more
• Experimental animals. useful reporting tools. listed, with permission from the contributor, in an
information refer to the British Association of Biological
Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology Code of Ethics. • Housing and husbandry. • In life sciences, useful reporting guidelines are promoted Acknowledgments section (for example, to recognize
by Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship contributions from people who provided technical help,
• Cultural restrictions do exist in some cultures that Journals should ask authors to confirm that ethical and legal writing assistance, or a department chairperson who
(FORCE11). Specific reporting guidance that editors can
prevent publication of the names of deceased people. approval was obtained prior to the start of the study, and provided general support).
recommend for animal experiments include the ARRIVE
In Aboriginal Australian culture, this often extends to state the name of the body giving the approval. Authors
guidelines, the National Research Council’s Institute for • Journals should ask corresponding authors to confirm
publication of photographs or film footage of deceased should also state whether experiments were performed
Laboratory Animal Research guidelines, and the Gold they have received written authorization from all their
persons. Editors are encouraged to consider any in accordance with relevant institutional and national
Standard Publication Checklist from Hooijmans and co-authors for publication of the article. The Copyright
sensitivities and, if necessary, confer with the author about guidelines and regulations.
colleagues. Transfer Agreements and Exclusive Licence Agreements
appropriate representation of subjects in published work.
• US authors should cite compliance with the US National used by Wiley incorporate this.
• Standards for reporting animal studies are discussed in
Research Council’s “Guide for the Care and Use of
more detail by Landis and colleagues. • Journals should require that, prior to submitting their
Laboratory Animals,” the US Public Health Service’s
Registering clinical trials article, all authors agree the order in which their names
“Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory • Further guidelines and standards in bioscience are
The World Health Organization and Declaration of Animals,”and “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory promoted on the Minimum Information Guidelines from will be listed in their manuscript.
Helsinki both suggest that clinical trials should be registered Animals.” Diverse Bioscience Communities (MIBBI) website and by • Journals should ask the corresponding author to ensure
prospectively, before participants are enrolled. The the Biosharing website. that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such
• UK authors should conform to UK legislation under the
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers as providing details of authorship, ethics committee
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment • Livestock reporting guidelines are provided by the
and Associations also requires its members to register trials. approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and
Regulations (SI 2012/3039). REFLECT statement
Legislation varies. For example, the US Food and Drug gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 does not require • European authors outside the UK should conform to properly completed.
registration for Phase 1 studies. Directive 2010/63/EU.
• Journals should consider sending copies of all
Medical journals that publish clinical trials should make Editors may ask authors to describe in their articles correspondence with the corresponding author to all
prospective registration a requirement for publication of how discomfort, distress, and pain were avoided and listed authors. They should ensure as far as possible
such trials. Clinical trial registration numbers should be minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer that emails are not returned because of invalid email
included in all papers that report their results. A suitable unnecessarily at any stage of an experiment. addresses.
statement about this in journal instructions for authors might
Editors may request that reviewers comment on the • Journals should encourage authors to use tools that
read: “We require that clinical trials are prospectively
standard of experimental reporting, experimental design, remove potential ambiguity around author names, such
registered in a publicly accessible database. Please
or any other aspects of the study reported that may cause as the unique persistent digital identifiers provided by
include the name of the trial register and your clinical trial
concern. If concerns are raised or clarifications are ORCID.
registration number at the end of your abstract. If your trial
needed, they may need to request evidence of ethical
is not registered, or was registered retrospectively, please
research approval or question authors.
explain the reasons for this.”
page 6 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 7Authorship disputes • Editors should apply consistent standards in their
peer review processes, including for special issues or
To manage authorship disputes, editors should refer to
supplements, and where peer review has been managed
the flowcharts from COPE and “Advice on how to spot
by a guest editor.
authorship problems”
Criteria for authorship • Editors should ensure confidential handling of
manuscripts, with no details being disclosed to anyone
Funding except the peer reviewers without the permission of the
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides definitions of authors author. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer
and contributors that are applicable in many instances beyond medical publishing. It Journals should request that authors list all funding sources
reviewer have taken place in confidence they should
recommends that authorship should be based on the following four criteria: in an Acknowledgments section. If there is no specific
remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been
funding this should be stated. The role of the research
given by all parties, or unless there are exceptional
funder beyond providing funding itself should also be
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, circumstances (for example, when they might help
described. It may be important to disclose, for example, if
analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during
a commercial organization funded the study, designed the
peer review).
study, and also recruited the investigators.
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND • Editors should ensure that all those who carry out peer
Other sources of support should be clearly identified in the
review on behalf of the journal understand and adhere
Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. For example,
to the need for confidentiality relating to the peer-review
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND these might include funding for open access publication, or
process.
funding for writing or editorial assistance, or provision of
experimental materials. • Editors should ask peer reviewers to disclose any
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions conflicts of interest when they respond to an invitation
related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated to review and also when they submit their review
and resolved. Peer review (since conflicts may only be identified after reading the
manuscript). Editors should ask that reviewers decline
The merits of different peer-review systems (for example,
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who invitations where circumstances might prevent them
revealing peer reviewers’ identities to authors and/or
meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four writing an unbiased review. Examples of potential
attempting to mask authors’ identities from peer reviewers)
criteria should be acknowledged. conflicts of interest include when they have collaborated
have been the subject of considerable debate and study, for
with the authors recently, when they are based in the
example, as conducted by the Publishing Research Consortium
same institution as the authors, when they are in direct
Authors collaborating on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work may have different and and Sense About Science. However, there is no clear
competition with the authors, when they have personal
perhaps nonoverlapping areas of expertise. However, authors should still be able to stand evidence of the superiority of any one system over another.
conflict or close personal relationship or association with
“accountable” for ensuring investigation and resolution of “questions related to the accuracy The benefits and feasibility of different systems probably
the authors, or when they have a financial interest in the
or integrity of any part of the work.” vary between disciplines. Editors should choose a peer-
manuscript.
review system that best suits their journal.
• Editors should request that invited peer reviewers inform
By these criteria, acquisition of funding alone, collection of data alone, or general COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer
them if they delegate peer review.
supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. Also, each author Reviewers, to which Editors and their editorial board can
should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate refer for guidance. • Editors should only ask authors to add citations to their
portions of the content. This also applies to all authors designated within large multi-author papers when there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.
Further guidance on the ethics of peer review is available
groups and for on those occasions when authors report work on behalf of a larger group of from many sources. For example, Rockwell presents To create an efficient, effective peer-review process, editors
investigators, upon which the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides guidance and EuCheMS provides guidelines. Hames’s book should:
guidance. “Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific
• Establish and maintain a secure database of suitably
Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice” presents useful
qualified peer reviewers that is compliant with data
Journals should encourage authors of intercultural research to consider appropriate recommendations and checklists.
protection legislation.
attribution for traditional knowledge, to the extent that this attribution does not compromise • Journals should have clearly defined and communicated
any agreed assurances of anonymity. This may include “traditional knowledge” notices, • Monitor the performance of peer reviewers for quality
policies on the type of peer review used, for example,
or citation of indigenous sources (such as people or community groups) or other cultural and timeliness. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce
single-blinded, double-blinded, “open,” or post-
sources of knowledge by name within the text. In some fields, such as anthropology, poor quality, tardy, abusive, or unconstructive reviews
publication.
appropriate attribution may require sharing authorship with intercultural collaborators and should not be used again.
this may differ from the approach recommended by the International Committee of Medical • Journals should make it clear to readers whether peer
• Consider giving authors the option to nominate peer
Journal Editors. More information is at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait review varies between types of article. For example,
reviewers or to request that particular individuals do not
Islander Studies web site. readers need to know if editorials and letters are not peer
peer review their paper. Editors should remind authors
reviewed but original articles and reviews always are
that they should avoid nominating peer reviewers
• Journals should also be clear if they operate a triage who have a conflict of interest. Editors are under no
process in which submissions that are out of scope or obligation to accept the authors’ nominations and should
otherwise inappropriate may be rejected or returned to validate nominations carefully.
the author without external peer review.
page 8 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 9• Give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and • Editors and editorial team members are excluded from potential conflicts of interest and a request for the peer Editorial independence
responsibilities, and consider encouraging the use of publication decisions when they are authors or have reviewer to disqualify or recuse themselves when these and commercial issues
reporting guidelines to check completeness of reporting contributed to a manuscript. are relevant.
in a systematic way. The Council of Science Editors presents discussion of
• A short statement may be useful for any published article • When editors, members of editorial boards, and other editorial independence in its White Paper on “Promoting
Peer reviewers can play an important role in identifying that lists editors or board members as authors to explain editorial staff are presented with papers where their own Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.”
misconduct such as possible data fabrication, falsification, the process used to make the editorial decision. interests may be perceived to impair their ability to make
plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, an unbiased editorial decision, they should withdraw The relationship between the editor and the journal owner
Some journals will not consider original research papers and publisher should be set out in a formal contract.
biased reporting, authorship abuse, redundant or duplicate from discussions, deputize decisions, or suggest that
from editors or employees of the journal. Others have It may be useful to establish a mechanism to resolve
publication, and undeclared conflicts of interest. Editors authors seek publication in a different journal.
procedures in place for ensuring fair peer review in these disputes before one is needed in order to help resolve any
should remind peer reviewers of this role, and of their
instances. COPE has published flowcharts that illustrate a suitable disagreements speedily.
requirement to:
process for investigations of suspected undisclosed conflicts
• Respect the confidentiality of peer review, and not of interest. Journal owners (whether learned societies or publishers)
discuss the manuscript or contact the authors or any other Conflicts of interest should avoid influencing editorial decisions.
Wiley uses a number of forms to capture conflicts of interest
people about the manuscript. • Editors’ decisions about whether to publish individual
Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose statements in online submission and peer review systems
• Declare any conflicts of interest. interests that might appear to affect their ability to present (for example, figure1). The International Committee of manuscripts submitted to their journal should not be
or review work objectively. These might include relevant Medical Journal Editors has created a uniform disclosure influenced by pressure from the editor’s employer, the
• Provide an objective and constructive explanation for journal owner, or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of
financial interests (for example, patent ownership, stock form for conflicts of interest.
their recommendation. editorial independence should be set out in the editor’s
ownership, consultancies, or speaker’s fees), or personal,
• Not allow their decision on a manuscript to be political, or religious interests. contract.
influenced by its origin or authorship. Figure 1 • It is appropriate for journal owners/publishers to discuss
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Typical form to capture conflicts of interest during general editorial processes and policies with journal
• Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s definition of conflicts of interest is as follows:
manuscript submission editors (for example, whether or not a journal should
own papers, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale
“A conflict of interest exists when professional publish a particular type of article), but they should not
for this.
judgment concerning a primary interest (such as get involved in decisions made by the editor about
• Not reproduce information or any part of the manuscript patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may individual articles.
under review in any of their own work prior to be influenced by a secondary interest (such as
publication by the authors. financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are It is impossible to completely insulate editorial decisions
as important as actual conflicts of interest.” from issues that may influence them, such as commercial
• Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their considerations. For example, editors will know which
expertise and within a reasonable timeframe. Strict policies preventing people with conflicts of interest articles are likely to attract offprint or reprint sales.
from publishing might encourage authors to conceal Even so, we suggest that editors, journal owners, and
• Not delay publication.
relevant interests, and might therefore be counterproductive. publishers establish processes that minimize the risk of
• Not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language. editorial decisions being influenced by commercial,
• Journal editors, board members, and staff who are
• Destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material involved with decisions about publication should declare personal, or political factors.
after they have reviewed them. their interests. Journals should consider publishing these • Editors should be free to judge all submissions on their
on their website and updating them as required, as well scholarly merit and on their potential importance to the
as disclosing how conflicts of interest were managed for community that the journal serves.
Timing of publication specific papers.
• Editorial decisions about individual papers should remain
Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and • Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed, separate from the sale of advertising.
publication and should avoid unnecessary delays. Editors including the period that these statements should cover
should consider how best to share information with authors (for example, 3 years). Editors should ask authors to • Journals that publish special issues, supplements, or
about any delays that occur. Online publication can describe relevant funding, including the purpose of the similar material that is funded by third-party organizations
provide the fastest route to publication and, therefore, to
Libel and defamation should establish policies for how these are handled. The
funding (for example, travel grant and speaker’s fees),
placing peer reviewed research (and other) information in and to describe relevant patents, stocks, and shares that Wiley has published some overview guidance about libel funding organization should not be allowed to influence
the public domain. they own. and defamation. the selection or editing of submissions, and all funded
items should be clearly identified.
• Editors should publish authors’ conflicts of interest Editors should be alert to language in both submitted
whenever they are relevant, or a statement of their manuscripts and also in peer review reports or • Journals should establish policies so that editorial
Editors and journal staff as authors decisions cannot be influenced by payment of an
absence. If there is doubt editors should opt in favor of correspondence which could give rise to legal action for
Editors or board members should not be involved in greater disclosure. defamation or negligent misstatement. Such language, open-access-article publication charge or other type of
editorial decisions about their own scholarly work. Journals which can be directed at corporate entities and payment made by authors.
should establish and publish mechanisms and clearly • If authors state that there are no conflicts of interest,
associations as well as individuals, should not appear Further discussion of editorial independence is presented
defined policies for handling submissions from editors, editors should publish a confirmation to this effect.
within published articles and should be removed from any by the Council of Science Editors in their white paper on
members of their editorial boards, and employees. We • Editors should manage peer reviewers’ conflicts of peer review report or correspondence that is passed on to integrity and in the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal
recommend that: interest. An invitation to review a manuscript should be the author. If in doubt, editors who work with Wiley should Publishers.
accompanied by a request for the reviewer to reveal any seek advice from Wiley.
page 10 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 11• Authors may choose not to respond to this invitation. Retractions and Expressions of
They do not have a right to veto comments about their Concern How to publish Retractions and
Commercial issues, work that the editor judges to be constructive. They
Expressions of Concern
Wiley has published general advice on publishing
supplements, and other may advise editors accordingly about unconstructive
retractions and answers to frequently asked questions. All
funded publications comments.
Retraction statements published by Wiley are reviewed and
Guidelines on retracting articles, written by COPE,
can be downloaded from their website. Similar to
Wiley sales teams are not permitted to become approved by Wiley lawyers. a Correction or an Erratum, the title of a Retraction
involved with peer review and the editorial Appeals COPE has also published guidelines for retracting articles. or Expression of Concern should include the words
decision-making process. Our sales teams use “Retraction” or “Expression of Concern” as well as
editorial information only after editorial decisions Journals should consider establishing and publishing a • Retractions should be published when errors could affect
information to identify the article that it refers to. It
are finalized. The extent of editorial information mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions, to the interpretation of data or information, or if work is
should be published on a numbered page (print
available and the timing of its disclosure are facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or proven to be fraudulent, or in other cases of serious
and electronic) and should be listed in the journal’s
agreed for each journal in consultation with the unfounded appeals. ethical misconduct (for example, duplicate or redundant
table of contents. It should cite the original article
journal owner and editor. Decisions about what • Editors should allow appeals to override earlier decisions publication, failure of all authors to agree to publication,
and link electronically with the original electronic
can be sold are also agreed in consultation with only when new information becomes available (for or plagiarism).
publication wherever possible. It should enable
the journal owner and editor (for example, the example, additional factual input by the authors, • Expressions of concern may be published if editors the reader to identify and understand why the
positions available for journal advertising within revisions, extra material in the manuscript, or appeals have well-founded concerns or suspicions and feel article is being retracted, or should explain the
or adjacent to an article, collected in specific about conflicts of interest and concerns about biased that readers should be made aware of potentially editor’s concerns about the contents of the article.
positions within the journal, and online, and peer review). Author protest alone should not affect misleading information. Editors should do so with It should be in a form that enables indexing and
whether it is permissible to sell reprints of papers decisions. Reversals of decisions without new evidence caution: an expression of concern carries the same risks abstracting services to identify and link to original
published online prior to print). should be avoided. to a researcher’s reputation as a retraction, and it is publications. Finally, it should be free to access.
Journals may choose to publish supplements, • Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors often preferable to wait to publish a retraction when a
special issues, or similar publications that are and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. definitive judgment has been made by an independent
funded by a third party (for example, a company, Editors may seek comments from additional peer investigation.
society, or charity). Journals should present readers reviewers to help them make their final decision. Data protection legislation
with the names of the organizations that provided
funding, and any conflict of interest statements. • Journals should state in their guidelines that the editor’s Withdrawal of articles Journals should comply with data protection legislation.
decision following an appeal is final. Editors who work with Wiley that have any concerns about
Journals should not permit funding organizations to Withdrawal or removal of articles is strongly discouraged.
data protection should seek advice from Wiley.
make decisions beyond which publications they Journals should consider establishing a mechanism for authors This policy is standard industry practice as described by
choose to fund. Decisions about the selection and and others to comment on aspects of the journal’s editorial the International Association of Scientific, Technical and
management, perhaps via the publisher or a third-party.
editing of contents to be published should be made Medical Publishers Guidelines on Preserving the Record of
Copyright and
Science.
by the editor (or co-editors) of the funded publication. intellectual property
A journal editor may elect to use “guest” or Corrections The practice of removal, deletion, or obscuring of an article
or part of an article should be limited to circumstances such Wiley has published separate guidance about copyright.
external editors to support the publishing of
supplements, special issues, or similar publications. Journals should encourage readers and authors to notify as: It is a legal requirement for an author to sign a copyright
In this case, it is the journal editor’s responsibility them if they find errors, especially errors that could affect agreement of some kind before publication. Some journals
the interpretation of data or information presented in an • Legal infringements, defamation, or other legal
to disclose the journal policy and ensure it is limitations; or ask authors to transfer their copyright to the journal. Others
implemented by those external editors. article. When an error is identified: accept an Exclusive License from authors. Wiley authors
• Journals should work with authors and their publisher to • False or inaccurate data, especially those that if acted wishing to make their article open access must sign an
Journals should reserve the right not to publish any upon could pose a serious health risk. Open Access Agreement.
funded publication that does not comply with their correct important published errors.
requirements. • Journals should publish corrections when important errors Even in these circumstances, a retraction statement must still
are found, and should consider retraction when errors be published to ensure that bibliographic information about
are so fundamental that they invalidate the work. the removed article is retained for the scientific record, and
an explanation must be given about the circumstances of
Academic debate • Corrections arising from errors within an article should be removal or withdrawal.
distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern
Journals should facilitate debate. Readers are also directed to the sections in this article
relating to misconduct.
• Journals should encourage correspondence and which discuss Retractions and Expressions of Concern.
• Corrections should be included in indexing systems and
constructive criticism of the work they publish.
linked to the original article.
• If an item of correspondence discusses a specific article,
• Corrections should be free to access.
the journal should invite the authors of the work to
respond before the correspondence is published. When Retractions and Expressions of Concern are discussed in
possible, the correspondence and the authors’ response other sections of these guidelines.
should be published at the same time.
page 12 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 13You can also read
