Scientific conduct and
misconduct: honesty is still the best policy
Neelesh Dahanukar 1,2& Sanjay Molur 2,3
1 Indian
Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), First floor, Central
Tower, Sai Trinity Building, GarwareCircle, Sutarwadi, Pashan,
Pune, Maharashtra 411021, India
2 Zoo
Outreach Organization, 3 Founder & Chief Editor, Journal of Threatened Taxa, 96 Kumudham Nagar, VillankurichiRoad, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
Email: 1 n.dahanukar@iiserpune.ac.in, 2 herpinvert@gmail.com
Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012
Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Citation: Dahanukar, N.
& S. Molur (2012). Scientific conduct and
misconduct: honesty is still the best policy . Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2845–2848.
Publication of scientific research is a cooperative system where
manuscripts are received by journals in good faith that scientific integrity is
maintained by authors while performing research and writing articles. This faith is also bi-directional as authors
expect that the editorial and reviewing processes are confidential, that the
ideas expressed by authors are not misused and that the judgment is fair. Since the dawn of scientific
communications, both publishers and authors have abided by this unwritten
agreement to further scientific progress. However, like any other cooperative system, even scientific publication
is vulnerable to defection by either parties leading to scientific misconducts,
which not only leads to controversies, but also shakes the foundation of this
cooperative institution.
Scientific misconduct has become a serious concern in recent years with
exposure of several high profile cases (for details see Montgomerie& Birkhead 2005; Triggle& Triggle 2007; Errami& Garner 2008; Redman & Merz 2008; Rathod 2010). As a result of these exposures and in the interest of maintaining
scientific integrity many journals have now formalized their policies against
scientific misconduct (for example see Aronson 2007; Mukunda& Joshi 2008; Handa 2008; Editorial 2011), while
European Science Foundation and ALLEA (All European Academies) have published a
code of conduct for research integrity (Anonymous 2011). With recent research on the nature of
scientific misconduct, its social effects and the journal’s stand against the
same (Martinson et al. 2005; Errami et al. 2008; Fanelli 2009; Long et al. 2009; Resniket al. 2009) it is now becoming clear that journal policies regarding
scientific misconduct, which hitherto were only implied, should be put more
explicitly in the form of a formal document.
In a recent issue of the Journal of Threatened Taxa (JoTT) (Vol. 4, No. 7) an article authored by Virendra Mathur, Yuvana Satya Priya,Harendra Kumar, MukeshKumar and Vadamalai Elangovanwas found to be a case of duplication as a similar article was published by the
authors elsewhere. The moment this
case was brought to our attention, the article was withdrawn from JoTT online issue and appropriate disciplinary
actions were taken. This incident
made us realize that a formal statement and description of the protocol for
defining JoTT policies against misconduct are
essential. This editorial,
therefore, tries to explain the concept of scientific misconduct and set the
grounds for JoTT policies against scientific
misconduct.
Understanding what
is scientific misconduct
Before setting JoTT policies against
scientific misconduct, it is essential to define the idea of scientific
misconduct more objectively. Building upon the different types of scientific
misconducts identified by The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
(Anonymous 2011) and giving a special recognition to duplicate publishing, we
identify four types of scientifically unethical behaviors: (i)
fabrication (creating a false data), (ii) falsification (manipulation of data),
(iii) plagiarism (copying ideas, statements, results, etc. from other author/s
without acknowledging the author/s and/or the source), and (iv) self-plagiarism
(multiple identical publications with major overlap in ideas, data, inferences,
etc.).
Based on different forms of scientifically unethical behaviors, for all
practical purposes, we will follow and build up on the definition of scientific
misconduct provided by Resnik (2003) who defines
scientific misconduct as follows:
(1) Misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of
accepted scientific practices, common sense ethical norms, or research
regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting
research.
(2) Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data
or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a
misconduct investigation or inquiry.
(3) A person who commits a form of punishable misconduct
may receive a sanction proportional to the seriousness of the misconduct.
(4) Misconduct does not include honest errors,
differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.
JoTT policies against scientific misconduct
JoTT will not tolerate any form of scientific misconduct and
all allegations of such nature will be evaluated objectively. JoTT will
also not take the decision hastily and all allegations will be reviewed
thoroughly before making the final verdict. In any kind of allegation JoTT will follow the protocol provided in Box 1.
Box 1: JoTT policies against scientific misconduct
Any form of scientific misconduct is unacceptable and JoTT reserves
the right to expose such work with appropriate level of penalty suitable for
the situation.
A. In the case of suspected scientific misconduct, JoTT will
follow the protocol given below:
1. The submitted
manuscript will be investigated objectively by the chief editor,associate editors and subject editors of JoTT and JoTT will
take appropriate actions suitable for the crime.
2. If scientific
misconduct is detected during the reviewing or editing process, JoTT will (i) reject the manuscript, (ii) inform the respective heads
of institutions of all the authors, and (iii) inform the funding agency(s)
about the misconduct.
3. If in doubt of
fabrication or falsification, JoTT can ask
for raw data, analysis, photographs, genomic sequences, gel pictures, etc. used
by the authors.
B. In case scientific misconduct is reported/detected in a published
paper, JoTT will
take appropriate actions in the following order:
1. The subject editor and/or reviewers of the paper will be asked to
comment on any evidence of scientific misconduct.
2. If the investigation suspects misconduct a response will be asked
from the authors along with raw data, analysis, photographs,
genomic sequences, gel pictures, etc., if applicable.
3. If the response from
authors is satisfactory revealing a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter
will be resolved.
4. If not, JoTT will
withdraw the paper from online version and appropriate announcements will be
placed in upcoming issue of JoTT.
5. JoTT will
also inform the respective head of the institutions of all the authors and the
funding agency(s) about the misconduct.
Fabrication (false data) and falsification (manipulation of data) are
severe crimes and JoTT’s rigorous peer-review
and editorial process will detect such a fraud. Even if some erroneous data may escape
the reviewing process and get published, we believe that future research will
expose such faulty data and under such cases JoTTcan request authors of the accused publication to provide raw data used for
analysis, and will take appropriate disciplinary actions against the accused
publication (Box 1). However,
another major concern is plagiarism, which, fortunately, has become relatively
easy to detect with the advent of internet and online
databases. It is essential that
authors understand the concept of plagiarism properly and understand its severity
to avoid any allegations based on the same.
Plagiarism is copying of ideas, statements, results, data, figures,
etc. from other author(s) without acknowledging the original source, either
published or unpublished, which may at times include copyright infringement (Amstrong 1993). Plagiarism is ethically wrong because authors try to take credit of
ideas stolen from other sources. Self-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism where authors express same
ideas, data, representations, etc. in multiple publications without
acknowledging the original publication. While, at a glance, self-plagiarism does not appear as unethical
stealing of credits, it is still an inappropriate behavior as it leads to
multiple duplicate publications and may also contribute to copyright
infringement. Copyright
infringement is a severe crime especially if the authors have transferred the
copyright of their article to the publisher. This issue does not always arise,
especially when the publication is licensed under “Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License”, like in the case of JoTT, where authors can reproduce the publication or
a part of the publication for non-profit purposes by crediting the original
source.
Honorable
scientific conduct is a two-way street
Editorial and reviewing policies of the journal are also as important
as the process of research and communication for the advancement of
science. Peer-review process is the back bone of
editorial and reviewing processes. Despite its long and winding
history (Spier 2002), the peer-review process has
attracted much debate in the recent past with the exposure of high profile
cases of scientific misconduct (Relman 1990; Kassirer & Campion 1994; Berkenkotter1995; Benos et al. 2007). On the one hand even though it has been
realized that the peer review process has its limitations, on the other it is
also agreed that currently there are no effective replacements for the process
(Relman 1990; Kassirer& Campion 1994; Berkenkotter 1995; Benos et al. 2007). Smith’s (2006) complete negation of the process and accusations that
peer-review process is completely flawed, however, is uncalled for.
Peer-reviewing is still one of the most reliable processes as at times it does
increase the credibility of papers, provide new ideas for authors, increase the
quality of scientific communication and catch faulty data (Berkenkotter1995; Alberts et al. 2008).
JoTT believes in fair review of articles and each article is
sent to at least two reviewers and one subject editor from the field. The
process of review and editing by the subject editor is double
blind--—neither the reviewers nor the subject editors are revealed the
identity of authors, and the authors are unaware of the reviewers. While some are skeptical about the efficiency
of blinding (van Rooyen et al. 1998), in accordance
to the studies supporting the effectiveness of blinding (McNutt et al. 1990; Laband & Piette 1994) we
believe that the review process and editing at JoTTis not biased by the name of the authors and their work place. All manuscripts are checked for their
scientific rigor, research integrity and scientific content without bias of any
kind.
While it is emphasized that the authors of different types of
communications to JoTT must practice ethics in
science, JoTT requests the reviewers
and subject editors of the manuscript to keep the ideas and data of the authors
confidential till it is formally published and that they must not steal
author’s ideas, plagiarize author’s work, or make a decision to reject because
of conflict of interest. Authors
have a right to make an appeal to the chief editor of JoTTif they have substantial grounds to believe that such malpractice has occurred
regarding their manuscript. If such
allegations are proved correct they will be treated seriously and appropriate
disciplinary actions will be taken against the accused reviewers and subject
editors.
What is not
scientific misconduct
At this point it is essential to understand what can be classified
under scientific misconduct and what cannot. The fourth component of Resnik’s (2003) definition of scientific
misconduct, which is also further emphasized in Resnik& Stewart (2012) actually clarifies this issue. More generally, scientific misconduct
does not include honest errors, errors in judgment, difference of opinion,
ethically questionable research practices or misconduct unrelated to the
publication being criticized. Usually such issues can stir a debate, but through the process of
response on the article and reply from the authors such issues can be either
resolved or lead to healthy scientific discussions that help in furthering
scientific thoughts. We at JoTT have always nurtured such scientific debates as
they keep the dynamic process of scientific progress rolling. Even though the response and replies
section of JoTT has existed since the
beginning a more formal introduction to this section is provided in Box 2. It is also possible that sometimes
authors miss out on a key reference or key findings while preparing the
manuscript. If these omissions are
unintentional, authors are not accused of any scientific misconduct. If such
issues are raised after publication authors are encouraged to send an addendum
in JoTT. Addendums will be peer reviewed before publication. It should be noted that addendums must
not challenge the major findings of the main paper.
Box 2: Response and
Replies section of JoTT
JoTT provides
a forum to express critical comments on recently published articles, which,
after peer review, are published under the section ‘Response and Reply’ along
with a reply from the authors of the criticized article. Response to the
published article should challenge the main conclusions, results or methodology
of the article and should not be concerned with trivial issues
which do not contribute to a healthy scientific discussion. JoTT will not
consider responses written in aggressive, unprofessional and unscientific
language. Neither responses nor replies should be personal attacks. JoTT will
send the response to the concerned authors and ask them for their
clarifications and reply. Reply must be sent only by the
authors of the article being criticized, and no one else, within 10 days
after receiving the response.
A shared
responsibility
Our fight against scientific misconduct is a shared responsibility
(Aronson 2007; Cross 2007; Titus et al. 2008; Rathod2010). While JoTTrequests the authors to follow the norms of scientific conduct faithfully and
honestly, JoTT also assures the authors that
the reviewing and editing process will be fair. JoTTrequests the reviewers, subject editors as well as the readers to be vigilant
against any form of scientific misconduct. JoTTalso assures that none of the decisions will be taken hastily and all
accusations will be evaluated objectively before taking any disciplinary
actions.
REFERENCES
Alberts, B., B. Hanson
& K.L. Kelner (2008). Reviewing
peer review. Science 321: 15.
Amstrong, J.D. II (1993). Plagiarism: what is
it, whom does it offend, and how does one deal with
it? American Journal of Roentgenology161: 479–484.
Anonymous (2011). The
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Published by
European Science Foundation and ALLEA (All European Academies), 24pp. <http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.htm
Accessed on 16 August 2012>
Aronson, J.K. (2007). Plagiarism-please don’tcopy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 64(4):
403–405.
Benos, D.J., E. Bashari, J.M. Chaves, A. Gaggar,
N. Kapoor, M. LaFrance, R. Mans, D. Mayhew, S.
McGowan, A. Polter, Y. Qadri,
S. Sarfare, K. Schultz, R. Splittgerber,
J. Stephenson, C. Tower, R.G. Walton & A. Zotov(2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education 31: 145–152.
Berkenkotter, C. (1995). The
power and the perils of peer review. Rhetoric
Review 13(2): 245–248.
Cross, M. (2007). Policing plagiarism. British Madical Journal 335:
963–964.
Editorial (2011). Combating
scientific misconduct. Nature Cell Biology 13(1): 1.
Errami,
M. & H. Garner (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature 451: 397–399.
Errami, M., J.M. Hicks, W.
Fisher, D. Trusty, J.D. Wren, T.C. Long & H.R.
Garner (2008). Deja vu–a study of duplicate citations in Medline. Bioinformatics 24: 243–249.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists
fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and
meta-analysis of survey data. PLoSONE 4: e5738.
Handa,
S. (2008). Plagiarism and publication ethics: Dos and don’ts. Indian
Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology74: 301–303
Kassirer,
J.P. & E.W. Campion (1994). Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA:
The Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 96–97.
Laband,
D.N. & M.J. Piette (1994). A
citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA: The
Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 147–149.
Long, T.C., M. Errami, A.C. George, Z. Sun & H.R. Garner (2009). Responding to
possible plagiarism. Science 323: 1293–1294.
Martinson, B.C., M.S. Anderson & R. de Vries (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737–738.
McNutt, R.A, A.T. Evans, R.H. Fletcher & S.W.
Fletcher (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality
of peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association263: 1371–1376.
Montgomerie,
B. & T. Birkhead (2005). A
beginner’s guide to scientific misconduct. International
Society for Behavioral Ecology 17(1): 16–24.
Mukunda,
N. & A. Joshi (2008). Note on plagiarism. Journal of Genetics 87: 99.
Rathod, S.D. (2010). Combating
plagiarism: a shared responsibility. Indian Journal of
Medical Ethics 7: 173–175.
Redman, B.K. &
J.F. Merz (2008). Scientific
misconduct: do the punishments fit the crime? Science321: 775.
Relman, A.S. (1990). Peer review in
scientific journals - what good is it? The Western Journal
of Medicine 153: 520–522.
Resnik, D.B. (2003). From Baltimore to
Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability
in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 10(2): 123–135.
Resnik,
D.B. & C.N. Stewart Jr. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and
scientific disagreement. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality
Assurance 19(1): 56–63.
Resnik, D.B., S. Peddada & W. Brunson Jr. (2009). Research
misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in
Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 16(5): 254–267.
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the
heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine 99: 178–182.
Spier, R. (2002). The
history of the peer-review process. Trends in
Biotechnology 20(8): 357–358.
Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells & L.J. Rhoades (2008). Repairing research
integrity. Nature 453: 980–982.
Triggle,
C.R. & D. J. Triggle (2007). What is the future
of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control?
Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “all that is necessary
for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vascular Health and
Risk Management 3(1): 39–53.
van Rooyen,
S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith & N. Black
(1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a
randomized trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association280: 234–237.