Important ethical principles and decisions are involved in almost every aspect of scientific literature publication. All too often, these principles and the decisions that flow from them are not shared with readers. In this brief review, I would like to discuss some aspects of scientific integrity and the ethics of publishing scientific material that impact medical publishing to raise awareness about good research and publication practice.
Most medical journals ascribe to a declaration like the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals that outlines ethical principles in the conduct and reporting of research. Some journals have developed a statement of ethics on their own, while others have developed a statement as well as have adopted a society or group's statement on ethical behavior.1 So it is with all medical journals and so it is with JSLS.
Medical journals such as JSLS are committed to publishing the highest quality science vetted through a process of peer review and peer critique. The peer review and publication process, which are matters of continual editorial board review, are designed to be as fair and thorough as possible. Good research should be well justified, well planned, and appropriately designed to answer a scientific question. Research studies should be conducted to the very highest standards of quality and data analysis.2
However, good research is not always easy to identify. In many instances, the results of medical and surgical research cannot be duplicated or reproduced easily. Manuscript evaluation, even with expert surgeon-scientists who work in the field, may not delineate good research from bad. Furthermore, several groups of researchers, surgeons, radiologists, anesthesiologists, and others may use the same source material that can result in very similar publications at about the same time.
The whole process of presenting scientific information to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge is grounded on trust; trust in the researcher, trust in the research method, trust in journal editors, and trust in the journal. There are no “scientific police” to sort out potential conflicts of who did what or who said what. In the final analysis, a journal's reputation is founded on trust–the trust of its authors, researchers, reviewers, editors, and readers.
Most of the time, the publication process runs smoothly. Indeed, there can be difficulties coordinating the activities of disparate groups, such as researchers, clinicians, reviewers, nursing personnel, residents and medical students, but usually all becomes tranquil as the pieces fall together. Seen from the outside, medical publishing can represent a great human endeavor humming along.
Nonetheless, there are times when ethical topics that concern the conduct and reporting of research are raised and reviewed in the context of possible scientific misconduct. These are times that can try men's souls.
For purposes of this discussion, the Federal definition of scientific misconduct is used and reads in part as “… fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. …”3 Put another way, scientific misconduct is a violation of standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research.
To further refine this discussion, fabrication is defined as recording or presenting (in any format) fictitious data. Falsification is manipulating data or experimental procedures to produce a desired outcome or to avoid a complicating or inexplicable result, and plagiarism is using someone else's words, ideas, or results without attribution.4 These 3 acts of misconduct, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, constitute the majority of cases reported to the Office of Research Integrity. Other forms of scientific misconduct may include citation plagiarism, that is, the willful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers; self-plagiarism or multiple publication of the same content with different titles, or in different journals, or both; violation of ethical standards regarding human and animal experimentation; and ghostwriting where someone other than the named author makes a major contribution.
The charge of scientific misconduct is a serious one and is not taken lightly by a journal editor. Many research projects derive some or all of their funding from public monies, and whenever public monies are involved, the Federal government has a strong, vested interest in how those monies are used.5
Because of the Federal fiduciary interest, Congress passed legislation codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 42 CFR Part 50 Subpart A, which requires institutions seeking federal research funding grants to establish an administrative process that deals with scientific misconduct. So that if an ethical problem, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, is identified with research that involves Federal funds and the problem is reported to an author's home institution, that institution is required by statute to begin an inquiry. If misconduct is identified, the institution is required to report the misconduct to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).4
How then does ethical publishing fit into the overall scheme of scientific integrity and possible scientific misconduct. If a question is raised about the honesty or integrity of a work, it is the editor's responsibility to ensure that the question is appropriately pursued. It is not the responsibility of the editor or the journal to conduct a full investigation or to make a determination of scientific misconduct; that responsibility lies with the institution, university, granting agency, or regulatory body where the work was done. The editor does, however, have an obligation to share reasonable concerns about potential misconduct with the appropriate persons or agencies responsible for conducting an investigation.2
All journals should have a clear policy concerning scientific misconduct. At a minimum, that policy should ensure confidentiality, impartiality, and fairness. The accused should be assumed to be innocent of all charges until proven otherwise. Additionally, the accused should have every opportunity to present their side of the issue. Misconduct does not include unintentional error.
But, if a determination is made of the reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken and chosen in accordance with the magnitude of the misconduct. Implementation of the response(s) should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions.2
Proper experimental techniques as well as proper publishing practices are evolving in light of the recognized need for practice within an ethical framework. Each of us must continue our own self-directed learning in ethics as well as science to contribute to and be part of the development of new knowledge.
References:
- 1.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at http://www.icmje.org Accessed January 2009 [PubMed]
- 2.WAME Publication Ethics Committee Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. Available at http://www.wame.org/resources/ethics-resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals Accessed February 2009
- 3.Steneck NH. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office [Google Scholar]
- 4.Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, et al. Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29:59–74 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity Handling Misconduct. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/reg_subpart_a.shtml Accessed February 2009