Challenges in Publication Ethics, New and Old

Abstract

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this editorial do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the AAMC or its members. Some interesting things have been happening lately with submissions to Academic Medicine. Our journal recently received a very large number of manuscripts that appear to have been generated from a single origin but without a findable human author. Our journal has also recently received manuscripts and creative works that appear not to be original or wholly original and are likely AI constructed or enhanced, although not always represented as such by authors at the time of submission. We have received submissions involving other thorny, if less novel, issues, too: empirical reports that raised questions about the authenticity of the underlying data or about the selection of data, analytic techniques, or research findings—whether “cherry picking” or “salami slicing.” There were submissions without proper attribution for direct quotes and ideas from others’ published work. Perhaps most concerning, we continue to receive manuscripts reporting human studies that do not appear to have met expected ethical standards and regulatory requirements. Both fresh and perennial, the ethically salient issues encountered by our editorial team are growing in number and complexity. We at Academic Medicine find that attention to scholarly integrity and publication ethics is becoming an ever-increasing dimension of our work. As in the past, when approaching such challenges, we refer to the policies and procedures of our journal and seek consultation with experts and wise persons in our ecosystem, including our full editorial team, members of our editorial board, members of our oversight committee, and past editors. In addition, Academic Medicine has a suite of resources for authors and reviewers, including relevant policies and procedures, which can be accessed at https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Pages/InformationforAuthors.aspx. Our journal has also provided guidance and commentary on the use of AI tools in the context of authoring or reviewing.1 In addition, we rely on the recommended principles and practices for ethical standards in publishing that have been established through careful collaborative efforts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in partnership with other scholarly organizations.2 One of COPE’s publications, “Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office,”3 published in 2022, is particularly valuable to us. The COPE recommendations highlight the importance of transparency in terms of journal content (e.g., how copyright is handled and how the journal is archived), processes and procedures (e.g., how peer review is conducted), organization (e.g., who owns and advises the journal), and business considerations (e.g., what the journal’s revenue sources are and whether there are author fees).3 Having clear and accessible journal policies is also important, as noted in the COPE recommendations, and they should encompass topics such as authorship, conflicts of interest, data sharing and reproducibility, appeals, and corrections and retractions, among others.3 COPE has developed flowcharts that provide a step-by-step approach to managing ethical problems that arise in the context of scholarly publishing.4 Examples of problems include authorship and contributorship challenges, concerns about plagiarism, fabrication of data, legal and regulatory restrictions on data prior to or after publication, manipulation of the peer review process, and corrections and retractions, among others. In dealing with a potential plagiarism concern raised by a reviewer, for instance, the COPE flowchart5 specifies that the reviewer should be thanked and informed that the concern will be investigated. The editor should ask the reviewer for all relevant documentation. The editor should then evaluate the concern, determining whether there is evidence of “clear plagiarism,” “redundancy,” or “minor copying” without misattribution of data. If there is no issue, the editor should discuss the matter with the reviewer. If there is evidence of plagiarism, the author should be contacted in writing, provided with that evidence, and offered the opportunity to respond and discuss the situation. If the author does not respond, the COPE flowchart provides guidance that the editor should communicate directly with the author’s institution or other authorities. There are a number of other possible steps, depending on the editor’s determinations along the path of decisions and on the presence (or absence) of good-faith engagement with an author. An honest error, a misjudgment by a very early author, or ambiguity in journal instructions could lead to resolution of an ethics concern. Still, the editor should communicate well-defined expectations for the author and coauthors and may choose to reject the manuscript or ask for revisions, based on the findings. While some of the very newest challenges in publication ethics may not be fully anticipated in our policies and procedures or the guidance proffered by COPE, Academic Medicine agrees that transparency is valuable and helpful. Transparency allows for honest engagement with authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders as journal editors and their editorial teams endeavor to identify and handle ethically salient aspects of their work. Looking ahead, Academic Medicine and other journals will certainly encounter ethically salient questions that are qualitatively different and quantitatively greater than in the past. Beyond managing these matters in a day-to-day way, it is vital that the ethical dimensions of publishing and of decision making by authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers be studied, enriching an area of scholarship that is underdeveloped in light of emerging challenges. Such scholarship is crucial to bringing greater understanding and rigorous evidence to the policies and practices of journals, which act as platforms for informed dialogue and learning, fostering advances in the fields we serve.

Ähnliche Arbeiten