|
Indian Journal of Pharmacology
Medknow Publications on behalf of Indian Pharmacological Society
ISSN: 0253-7613 EISSN: 1998-3751
Vol. 37, Num. 3, 2005, pp. 199-203
|
Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 37, No. 3, May-June, 2005, pp. 199-203
Special Article
Guidelines on good publication practice
The COPE report 2003
Committee on publication ethics (COPE)
Publication Ehics
Correspondence Address:Publication Ehics
Code Number: ph05054
Why the guidelines were developed
COPE was founded in 1997 to address breaches of research and publication ethics. A voluntary body providing a discussion forum and advice for scientific editors, it aims to find practical ways of dealing with the issues, and to develop good practice.
We thought it essential to attempt to define best practice in the ethics
of scientific publishing. These guidelines should be useful for authors,
editors, editorial board members, readers, owners of journals, and publishers.
Intellectual honesty should be actively encouraged in all medical and
scientific courses of study, and used to inform publication ethics
and prevent misconduct. It is with that in mind that these guidelines
have been produced.
Details of other guidelines on the ethics of research and published
codes of conduct are listed in the Appendix.
How the guidelines were developed The guidelines were developed from a preliminary version drafted by individual members of the committee, which was then submitted to extensive consultation. They address: study design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflict of interests, the peer review process, redundant publication, plagiarism, duties of editors, media relations, advertising, and how to deal with misconduct.
What they aim to do
These guidelines are intended to be advisory rather than prescriptive, and to evolve over time. We hope that they will be disseminated widely, endorsed by editors, and refined by those who use them.
1. Study design and ethical approval
Definition
Good research should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed,
and ethically approved. To conduct research to a lower standard may constitute
misconduct.
Action
(1) Laboratory and clinical research should be driven by protocol;
pilot studies should have a written rationale.
(2) Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions,
rather than just collect data.
(3) Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and
collaborators, including, if appropriate, the participants.
(4) The final protocol should form part of the research record.
(5) Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors
and collaborators, and on matters of authorship and publication, is advised.
(6) Statistical issues should be considered early in study design,
including power calculations, to ensure there are neither too few nor
too many participants.
(7) 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.
(8) Use of human tissues in research should conform to the highest
ethical standards, such as those recommended by the Nuffield Council
on Bioethics.
(9) 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.
(10) 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 (CIOMS).
(11) Animal experiments require full compliance with local,
national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements.
International standards vary.
(12) 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.
2 . Data analysis
Definition
Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does
not necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of
data do constitute misconduct.
Action
(1) All sources and methods used to obtain and analyse data, including
any electronic pre-processing, should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations
should be provided for any exclusions.
(2) Methods of analysis must be explained in detail, and referenced,
if they are not in common use.
(3) The post hoc analysis of subgroups is acceptable, as long
as this is disclosed. Failure to disclose that the analysis was post
hoc is unacceptable.
(4) The discussion section of a paper should mention any issues
of bias which have been considered, and explain how they have been dealt
with in the design and interpretation of the study.
3 . Authorship
Definition
There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts
have been made (see Appendix). As a mini-mum, authors should take responsibility
for a particular section of the study.
Action
(1) 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.
(2) To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it
is helpful to decide early on in the planning of a research project who
will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) Careful reading of the target journal′s "Advice to Authors" is
advised, in the light of current uncertainties.
(6) Authors should be vigilant about allowing their name to
be used on a piece of work to add credibility to the content.
4. Conflicts of interest
Definition
Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have
interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgements
on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed
later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
They 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.
Action
(1) Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors
by researchers, authors, and reviewers.
(2) Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest
to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
(3) Editors should also consider disclosing to readers their
own conflicts of interest and those of their teams, editorial boards,
managers, and owners.
(4) Sometimes conflicts of interest may be so extreme that publication
will not be possible or people (for example, reviewers or editors) may
have to be excluded from decisions on publication.
5. Peer review
Definition
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.
Action
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
(4) Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data,
arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors′permission.
(5) Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased
and justifiable reports.
(6) If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence
to the editor.
(7) Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer
review, selection, and appeals processes.
(8) Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance
rates and publication times.
6. Redundant publication
Definition
Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross
reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.
Action
(1) Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further
confirmation is required.
(2) Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings
of meetings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication,
but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission.
(3) Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable,
provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original
source at the time of submission.
(4) At the time of submission, authors should disclose details
of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers
in press.
7. Plagiarism
Definition
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.
Action
(1) All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of other
people′s written or illustrative material is to be used, permission
must be sought.
8. Duties of editors
Definition
Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their journal
from the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal
in good shape.
Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management
team.
They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including
readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers
and the media.
Actions
(1) 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.
(2) Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal
should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
(3) Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
(4) All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication,
taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting
interests.
(5) Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
(6) When a published paper is subsequently found to contain
major flaws, editors must accept responsibility for correcting the record
prominently and promptly.
(7) Where misconduct is suspected, the editor must write to
the authors first before contacting the head of the institution concerned.
(8) Editors should ensure that the Instructions to Authors specify
the need for authors to obtain informed consent from patients included
in their research.
9. Media relations
Definition
Medical research findings are of increasing interest to the print and
broadcast media.
Journalists may attend scientific meetings at which preliminary research
findings are presented, leading to their premature publication in the
mass media.
Action
(1) Authors approached by the media should give as balanced an account
of their work as possible, ensuring that they point out where evidence
ends and speculation begins.
(2) Simultaneous publication in the mass media and a peer reviewed
journal is advised, as this usually means that enough evidence and data
have been provided to satisfy informed and critical readers.
(3) Where this is not possible, authors should help journalists
to produce accurate reports, but refrain from supplying additional data.
(4) All efforts should be made to ensure that patients who have
helped with the research should be informed of the results by the authors
before the mass media, especially if there are clinical implications.
(5) Authors should be advised by the organisers if journalists
are to attend scientific meetings.
(6) It may be helpful to authors to be advised of any media
policies operated by the journal in which their work is to be published.
10. Advertising
Definition
Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant income from
advertising.
Reprints may also be lucrative.
Action
(1) Editorial decisions must not be influenced by advertising revenue
or reprint potential: editorial and advertising administration must be
clearly separated.
(2) 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.
(3) Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal
unless a correction is to be added.
Dealing with misconduct
1. Principles
(1) The general principle confirming misconduct is intention
to cause others to regard as true that which is not true.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be
exhaustive.
2. Investigating misconduct
(1) 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.
(2) COPE is always willing to advise, but for legal reasons,
can only advise on anonymised cases.
(3) It is for the editor to decide what action to take.
3. Serious misconduct
(1) Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct
seriously, but they must recognise that they do not usually have
either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations
into serious
cases.
(2) The editor must decide when to alert the employers of
the accused author(s).
(3) Some evidence is required, but if employers have a process
for investigating accusations-as they are increasingly required to
do-then editors do not need to assemble a complete case. Indeed,
it may be ethically
unsound for editors to do so, because such action usually means consulting
experts, so spreading abroad serious questions about the author(s).
(4) 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.
(5) If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied
by convincing evidence, then editors should confidentially seek expert
advice.
(6) If the experts raise serious questions about the research,
then editors should notify the employers.
(7) If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial
processes should proceed in the normal way.
(8) If presented with convincing evidence of serious misconduct,
where there is no employer to whom this can be referred, and the
author(s) are registered doctors, cases can be referred to the General
Medical
Council.
(9) If, however, there is no organisation with the legitimacy
and the means to conduct an investigation, then the editor may decide
that the case is sufficiently important to warrant publishing something
in the journal. Legal advice will then be essential.
(10) If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted
an adequate investigation of a serious accusation, they may feel
that publication of a notice in the journal is warranted. Legal advice
will
be essential.
(11) Authors should be given the opportunity to respond
to accusations of serious misconduct
4. Less serious misconduct
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Authors should be given the opportunity to respond
to any charge of minor misconduct.
(4) If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt
some of the sanctions outlined below.
5. Sanctions
Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The
following are ranked in approximate order of severity:
(1) A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors,
where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
(2) A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
(3) A formal letter to the relevant head of institution
or funding body.
(4) Publication of a notice of redundant publication
or plagiarism.
(5) An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
(6) Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual,
unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated
period.
(7) Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from
the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing
authorities.
(8) Reporting the case to the General Medical Council,
or other such authority or organization which can investigate
and act
with due
process.
Appendix
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Facilities for non-patient volunteer studie s.
London: APBI, 1989.
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Guidelines for medical experiments in non-patient human volunteer s.
London: ABPI, 1990.
ABPI fact sheets and guidance notes:
Clinical trials and compensation guideline s, January 1991.
Guidelines for phase IV clinical trial s, September 1993.
Guidelines on the conduct of investigator site audit s, January
1994.
Relationship between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industr y,
June 1994.
Good clinical trial practic e, November 1995.
Patient information and consents for clinical trial s, May
1997.
Guidelines on the structure of a formal agreement to conduct sponsored clinical researc h,
July 1998.
Good clinical research practic e, July 1998.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studie s.
Geneva: WHO, 1991.
General Medical Council. Good medical practice guidelines series:
Consen t, February 1999.
Confidentialit y, October 1995.
Transplantation of organs from live donor s, November 1992.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform
requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1997; 27 7:927-34.
Medical Research Council. Policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific misconduc t.
London: MRC, 1997.
Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on the mentally incapacitate d.
London: MRC, 1991.
Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on childre n.
London: MRC, 1991.
Medical Research Council. Responsibility in the use of animals in medical researc h.
London: MRC, 1993.
Medical Research Council. Responsibility in the use of personal medical information for research. Principles and guidelines to practic e.
London: MRC, 1985.
Medical Research Council. MRC Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trial s.
London: MRC, 1998.
Medical Research Council. Principles in the assessment and conduct of medical research and publicising result s.
London: MRC, 1995.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Human tissue: Ethical and legal issue s.
London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1995.
Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services. Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: a Guidance Document for Editor s.
http://oridhs.gov/html/publications/guidelines.asp
Royal College of Physicians. Research involving patient s.
London: RCP, 1990.
Stonier P, Lowe GDO, McInnes G, et a l. A National Panel
for Research Integrity: A Proposed Blueprint for the Prevention and
Investigation
of Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb 2001; 3 1:253-5.
Acknowledgement
The following are gratefully acknowledged for their contribution to the
drafting of these guidelines:
Philip Fulford (Coordinator)
Professor Michael Doherty
Ms Jane Smith
Dr Richard Smith
Dr Fiona Godlee
Dr Peter Wilmshurst
Dr Richard Horton
Professor Michael Farthing
Other members of COPE
Delegates to the Meeting on April 27 1999
Other corresponding editors
Copyright 2005 - Indian Journal of Pharmacology
|