Search

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Indian Journal of Public Health.)

This essay is about the unique role of proper nouns at the intersection of knowledge and property, both tangible and intangible. Nouns are central to any form of property and credit, from a person's name listed on a property deed or copyright registration, to the name of an artist to whom a work is attributed, or that of a scientist after whom a discovery or theory is named. And names can also be found on the other end of the property spectrum, not as the names of authors and owners but as objects of property, as in the case of brand names. Here I trace some of the functions of these names as they move across different scenarios of knowledge-making and property-making, focusing on some of the effects those trajectories are having in the contemporary technosciences as they bring together the function of the author and that of the brand.

Objective: To assess the pattern of instructions regarding the ethical requirements given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals., Material & Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 'instructions for authors,' for analysis of guidelines on ethical processes, was done. Instructions to authors in journals of pediatric dentistry across the globe were reviewed for guidelines with regards to fourteen key ethical issues. Descriptive statistics were used, and results were expressed in percentages as well as numbers., Results: Of the 18journals of pediatric dentistry, all 14 ethical issues were covered by the instructions to authors in only three journals with only 50% of these providing clarity about authorship using ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, COI declaration was found to be present as mandatory in about 44% of the journals. 38.9% of the sampled journals mentioned guidelines on research misconduct, publication issues such as plagiarism, overlapping/fragmented publications, and availability of raw research data from authors. Guidelines on handling of complaints about editorial team was provided to authors by slightly over 33% of the selected pediatric dentistry titles while handling of complaints about authors and reviewers were mentioned in 16.7%and 55.6% of the journals respectively., Conclusion: A significant proportion of Journals of Pediatric Dentistry did not provide adequate instructions to authors regarding ethical issues., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites., Competing Interests: None

The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day. Careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders. Recent instances of lack of appropriate research ethics committee overview, or participant consent for inclusion in the research study, or a case report, resulting in retractions, emphasize the need for greater awareness regarding these ethical aspects. Authors should strive to avoid redundancy, especially for review articles, both systematic and narrative. Clinical trial registration before commencing enrolment is mandatory as per contemporary norms. Transparent declaration of authorship contributions as well as appropriate attribution of authorship are recommended, since these may help avoid subsequent authorship conflicts. Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial. Unbiased peer review is a critical part of editorial decision making; recent instances of peer review fraud have resulted in numerous retractions of scientific papers. Any reproduction of text, figures, or tables should be with due attribution to source, and after seeking permission of the copyright holder. Citations to published work should be relevant and diverse. Research assessment should rely on the assessment of quality of published work, rather than mere citation analyses. Authors should beware predatory, low-quality journals, and utilize social media channels to ethically promote their research with due consideration to privacy and copyright. Rheumatology societies should collaborate to develop guidelines for ethical research reporting, and educate young scientists regarding these principles.

Objective: To analyze the causes of retracted publications and the main characteristics of their authors., Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed including all retracted publications from January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2016 indexed in PubMed. The causes of retraction were classified as: data management, authorship issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other causes, and unknown reasons. Then, misbehaviour was classified as misconduct, suspicion of misconduct or no misconduct suspicion., Results: 1,082 retracted publications were identified. The retraction rate for the period was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. The main cause of retraction was misconduct (65.3%), and the leading reasons were plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. The highest proportion of retracted publications corresponded to Iran (15.52 per 10,000), followed by Egypt and China (11.75 and 8.26 per 10,000)., Conclusions: Currently, misconduct is the main cause of retraction. Specific strategies to limit this phenomenon must be implemented. It would be useful to standardize reasons and procedures for retraction. The development of a standard retraction form to be permanently indexed in a database might be relevant., (Copyright © 2018 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To explore academia perceptions and experience with unethical authorship practices in their respective institutions., Method: 21 in-depth interviews were carried out., Results: Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university., Conclusion: It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The most obvious difference in science publishing between 'then' and 'now' is the dramatic change in the communication of data and in their interpretation. The democratization of science via the Internet has brought not only benefits but also challenges to publishing including fraudulent behavior and plagiarism, data and statistics reporting standards, authorship confirmation and other issues which affect authors, readers, and publishers in different ways. The wide accessibility of data on a global scale permits acquisition and meta-analysis to mine for novel synergies, and has created a highly commercialized environment. As we illustrate here, identifying unacceptable practices leads to changes in the standards for data reporting. In the past decades, science publishing underwent dramatic changes in the communication of data and in their interpretation, in the increasing pressure and commercialization, and the democratization of science on a global scale via the Internet. This article reviews the benefits and challenges to publishing including fraudulent behavior and plagiarism, data and statistics reporting standards, authorship confirmation and other issues, with the aim to provide readers with practical examples and hands-on guidelines. As we illustrate here, identifying unacceptable practices leads to changes in the standards for data reporting. This article is part of the 60th Anniversary special issue., (© 2016 International Society for Neurochemistry.)

In order for nurses and other health care professionals to make important contributions to the literature, there must be an awareness of the many areas where unintentional ethical conflicts can arise. Leading ethical concerns include plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship standards, bias, and conflicts of interest. Although many sources are available on the variety of ethical concerns, this article takes the position to identify the area of concern and describe why it is an ethical violation. Solutions are posed for resolving the conflict, including why medical librarians can help in the publishing process.

High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship. These problems are discussed in this article., (© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Ghostwriting in its various forms has received critical scrutiny from medical ethicists, journal editors, and science studies scholars trying to explain where ghostwriting goes wrong and ascertain how to counter it. Recent analyses have characterized ghostwriting as plagiarism or fraud, and have urged that it be deterred through stricter compliance with journal submission requirements, conflict of interest disclosures, author-institutional censure, legal remedies, and journals' refusal to publish commercially sponsored articles. As a supplement to such efforts, this paper offers a critical assessment of medical ghostwriting as contrary to good patient care, on the grounds that it contradicts established general principles guiding clinical ethics. Specifically, I argue that ghostwriting undermines trust relationships between authors and their readers, and between these readers and their trusting patients, and in so doing contradicts the duty of respect for patient autonomy by obstructing informed consent. For this reason, complicity in ghostwriting practices should be understood as a violation of the professional ethical duties of physicians and other healthcare workers., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study was planned as an exploratory study to determine the extent of occurrence of misconduct in publication (gift-authorship, ghost-authorship, falsification of data, fabrication of data, plagiarism, and duplication) amongst biomedical researchers. It was a questionnaire-based study, conducted at 9 institutions; 6 medical colleges (4 government-run and 2 private), 1 non-teaching government hospital, and 2 corporate hospitals, located in northern, central and southern India. The study was conducted between August 2012 and March 2013. 155 senior residents (<3 years after post-graduation) and young faculty members (<10 years after post-graduation) with at least five previous publications were administered a structured questionnaire, in which no identifying information was collected. In addition to personal characteristics, the information collected included their knowledge of publication ethics, their opinions about the prevalence of these practices among their colleagues, and details of any first-hand information on publication misconduct. 155 responses were included for analysis. 141 (91%) respondents agreed that they had some knowledge of publication ethics; but only 29% believed it was adequate. The most commonly observed misconduct was offering gift authorship, reported by 101 (65%); followed by alteration of data reported by 88 (56%). Plagiarism was observed by 83 respondents (53%); while 52 (33.5%) respondents had observed a colleague’s name being omitted from a paper to which she/he had significantly contributed. A majority of respondents in the present study reported witnessing publication misconduct, thereby revealing the common occurrence of this problem among Indian biomedical researchers.

This issue of Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation includes an article by Rajasekaran et al that addresses the persistent, difficult, and unsettled issue of unwarranted authorship as it applies to physical medicine and rehabilitation. The findings that it exists and that its frequency is similar to the 25% to 50% rates reported in other medical specialties are discouraging but, unfortunately, not surprising. They do, however, warrant discussion. This commentary attempts to do so and begins with a review of Rajasekaran's findings. It then proceeds to compare them with other work in the literature and concludes with a discussion of (1) why unwarranted authorship matters; (2) if it matters, why does it matter; and (3) what we as authors, editors, and the publishing world can do about it. Our goal is to give us all an improved understanding of the situation as well a little more backbone when dealing with the pressures associated with both overt and covert suggestions for the inclusion of authors that we may believe are unwarranted., (Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The issue of plagiarism--claiming credit for work that is not one's own, rightly, continues to cause concern in the academic community. An analysis is presented that shows the effects that may arise from metrics-based assessments of research, when credit for an author's outputs (chiefly publications) is given to an institution that did not support the research but which subsequently employs the author. The incentives for what is termed here "institutional plagiarism" are demonstrated with reference to the UK Research Assessment Exercise in which submitting units of assessment are shown in some instances to derive around twice the credit for papers produced elsewhere by new recruits, compared to papers produced 'in-house'.