Download - Ethic Publication
-
PUBLICATION AND ITS ETHICS
Elsadig Agabna Elhadi
-
)) ((
:
.
...
-
TOPICS
General introduction about publication and type of scientific papers
How to select media for publication
Publication process
Authorship
Conflict of interest
Publication misconduct
Tips
-
INTRODUCTION
Publication of a research article represents the
final stage of a scientific project.
Robert Day (1983) defines a scientific paper as
a written and published report describing
original research results
Research = Honesty
-
WHY WE PUBLISH
Publication of a research article represents the final stage of a scientific project.
Why Publish?
If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done (G. Whitesides, Adv. Mater., 2004,)
if it wasnt published, it wasnt done in E.H. Miller 1993
1- Remember..
2- Under stand
3-scientific communication
4- Intellectual property
5- promotion and self esteem
communicate : The purpose
of your paper is to explain
why you did a piece of work,
how you did it, what you
found, and what
your findings might mean r
-
1. RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CHANNELS:
Research paper; research reviews; short
communications; conference papers and
posters; theses; books and book chapters;
annual reports; working papers; newsletters;
project proposals and reports; websites; blogs
and discussion groups.
-
RESEARCH PAPER
The purpose of a paper journal is to communicate
original research that has not been done or
published before, to other scientists. The findings
are believed to be fact because they are refereed
by experts in the field before they can be accepted
for publication.
The papers are judged according to originality,
novelty, quality of scientific content and
contribution to existing knowledge.
-
RESEARCH REVIEWS
The review is summary and interpretation of
existing facts and theories within a particular
field; it develops logical arguments until they
end in new hypotheses, and speculations on
how they may be tested. It leads to new areas
of research, which must be testable and must
be supported by facts .
Simple literature surveys are not accepted.
-
SHORT COMMUNICATIONS
These are preliminary results of a project, perhaps one seasons results, or results that are not of major significance but are nevertheless interesting.
Annual reports
Annual reports are a description of the activities that has been done during a year. The intention is not so much to prove a hypothesis, rather justify budget expenditure in terms of research undertaken, and demonstrate impact to attract more funding.
-
CONFERENCE PAPERS AND POSTER AND
THESES
Conferences offer scientists an opportunity to present results of research that is still at a preliminary stage, but that contains interesting developments. Because time is limited, oral papers are short.
Thesis contains an extensive review of the literature, as well as the results of a number of experiments, all aimed at testing a unifying hypothesis. Some of the material may already have been published in a series of research papers during the course of the research
-
BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS
I t is a synthesis of knowledge and information
about a particular subject. It rarely has a
fundamental hypothesis.
-
WORKING PAPERS
AND NEWSLETTERS
A working paper is preliminary report of a piece of
research that is interesting, but intended for peer-
reviewed publication. Often authors may release
working papers to share ideas about a topic or to
elicit feedback before submitting to a peer-
reviewed conference or academic journal.
Newsletter communicate quickly facts that are of
interest to its Readers, with little emphasis on
justification or methodology.
-
PROJECT PROPOSALS AND REPORTS
A project proposal represents the justification
for a programme of work, with the aim of
producing measurable outputs that will
demonstrably reach a clearly defined objective.
Like a research paper, it starts out with a
hypothesis that has led to a proposed course of
action and a programme of research designed
to test the concept.
-
WEBSITES AND BLOGS AND DISCUSSION
GROUPS
Websites have a potentially huge audience with different
levels of expertise, and so offer scientists an opportunity to publicise the results and impact of their research to groups of people different from the usual scientists.
Blogs (a contraction of the term web log) are personal, representing the views of the writer, and so offer scientists a chance to put forward their own ideas, free of the constraints of the institution they are working within. Discussion groups are electronic meeting places, where groups of people with a common interest can share their views in a continuing discussion.
-
HOW TO SELECT A JOURNAL
Select the journal to which you are going to submit your paper before you start to write it.
What is the scientific level of the journal?
Look at past issues of the journal and ask yourself the question:
Is my work as good as, or better than, the material the journal is publishing?
Who is the editor? Who is on the editorial board?
Which authors publish in the journal?
Does the journal have an international audience?
-
What are the aims and scope of the journal?
How often is the journal published?
What types of article does the journal
publish?
Are there any conditions to submitting to the
journal?
Membership , feeetc..
-
COVER LETTER
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Please find enclosed or attached our manuscript entitled New Sudan by Ahmed et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sudan science journal..
Followed by one sentence that describes the state of the field, one sentence that describes what you did in your study, one sentence that describes what you found, and one sentence that explains the importance of your results
We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission
Sincerely yours, Ahmed.
-
Paper submission
Paper rejected
Managing Editor check to ensure
that it complies with the journals
instructions
Reviewers (2 or 3)Author edit and
resubmit
Editor assessment
Author response to
comments
Minor revision
Major revision
Rejectedaccepted
To particular Journal not
many at the same time
publicationProf check
-
PEER REVIEWING
Dates back to the 1700s
Is unpaid, volunteer work, and culture of
service to the profession.
-
REVIEWING PROCESS
SINGLE-BLIND REVIEW: The reviewers know the authors are, but the authors don't
DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW: The reviewers and the authors do not know each other.
OPEN REVIEW: reviewers and authors know each other.
Indeed, any 'expert' in the field must be a rival by definition, and conflicted by definition. Yet we trust their judgments. DR MICHAEL CURTIS
-
ETHICS FOR REVIEWER
Declare any conflict of interest
Avoid asking the author cites their papers,
Avoid use the paper before publication in their work
Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
Use polite language
Delete the manuscript and related materials after reviewing.
Double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review, have been involved with any of the work in the paper and the paper is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
-
Think that the reviewers as friend and
unbiased and put substantial (unpaid) effort
to understanding your work and improve it.
The comment from Reviewers:
Accepted with no changes If dreams come
true
Rejected Dont worry If confident about it:
Ask the editor for new reviewers I dont
advise or resubmit to other journal
Attend a course on scientific writing
-
Accept with change
Major revision: Revise and Resubmit
Indicates that the Action Editor has significant concerns about some aspect(s) of the study design, method, analysis, and/or interpretation but also believes that the paper is likely to make a significant contribution to the literature if the identified limitations can be addressed adequately.
Revise the paper ; dont think of resubmitting it to different journal without modification. Because it may be send to the same reviewers.
-
MINOR REVISION:
Indicates that the Action Editor is satisfied
with major aspects of the study design,
method, analysis, and interpretation and is
requesting either minor additions or points
of clarification to enhance the final product.
Good news you are in the road, Every
published paper is revised at least once
The comment of reviewer is about the work,
they arent personal
-
The Rules for respond to reviewers comments
1- Reply politely, thanks them for their comments acknowledge their contribution when they have made suggestions that improve the manuscript.
Respond to all reviewers comment fully and in sequence. For example Reviewers 1 Comment No 1 Reply.
When you disagree with them which is Ok do it in very polite way and support your arguments with evidence
-
EXAMPLE AGREEING WITH THE
REVIEWERS COMMENTS
Dear Editor,
Let us open by thanking the two reviewers for their insightful comments. They gave us clear
guidance and some positive critiques. Following their suggestions, we spent more time
reading and came to the revision process better prepared. We enjoyed the process and think
that the reviewers comments have tremendously affected the revised draft. Both reviewers
should now clearly see the difference they made to the revised manuscript. In the following
lines we detail the changes in line with the reviewers comments.
Reviewer: 1
Again, we would like to express our appreciation for your extremely thoughtful suggestions. As
you will see below we have been able to revise and improve the paper as a result of your
valuable feedback. You highlighted that we did not spend enough time discussing the implications of our arguments for current understandings of Druckers work. We agree with your suggestion and have added in two additional paragraphs in the conclusion (p.30-1), and a few comments within
the paper (i.e p.11), that are devoted to outlining the implications of our analysis. We have
kept our discussion brief to ensure we maintain the commitment to the appropriate page
and word length, but what we do outline should make clear what this perspective on
Drucker makes relevant for management practitioners and scholars alike.
-
REJECTION
Paul Raymond Hunter, a professor of social protection at the UK-based University of East Anglia
Rejection of manuscripts is common for those who write manuscripts, researchers are second to sales people in receiving rejections.
If your manuscripts are not getting rejected, then you are not being ambitious enough, Researchers should send their manuscripts to credible journals.
Use the reviewers and editor comment to strengthen the weak areas of the paper.
Resubmit to the same journal after modification or other Journals
-
WHO'S AFRAID OF PEER REVIEW?
JOHN BOHANNON
Open access Journal: Story
He create a fake paper and sent to open access journal
Results:
157 acceptance and 98 had rejection.
60% without any sign of peer review
70% ultimately accepted the paper. Most reviews focused exclusively on the paper's layout, formatting, and language
4 OCTOBER 60 2013 VOL 342 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
-
AN AUTHOR
Is someone who, through his / her own scientific work, has made a substantial contribution to a publication.
planning, execution, evaluation or supervision of research, and to writing the manuscript and approving the final version of the manuscript
Thus provide just fund or data collection or general supervision of research group will not qualified a person as an author.
Contributors whose contribution is not substantial should be listed in the acknowledgement section.
-
ORDER OF LISTING
Authorship is not a problem in paper with one
author or two authors is clear, but the problem
is when there are more than two authors.
1-The sequence-determines-credit approach
(SDC). The sequence of authors reflected the
importance of their contributions in descending
order. The first author has the greatest
contribution and the last author the least.
-
The equal contribution norm (EC). Authors
are listed in alphabetical order similar
contributions.
The first-last-author-emphasis norm
(FLAE). Highlights the importance of the first
and the last author;
, the percent-contribution-indicated (PCI)
each authors contribution to be expressed
in %, using various scoring systems.
-
UNETHICAL AUTHORSHIP
Guest author: or gifted author or Pressure author :
He is a person who has no contribution to the
paper ( Friend or senior researcher or Boss).
Ghost author: Ghost author , commissioned to
write on another persons behalf, generally works
for a fee and agrees that the text will not be
published under his own name.
Duplicate or dividing one research into smaller one
(self plagiarism).
-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
An interest may be defined as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.
Conflicts of interest are situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigators judgement in conducting or reporting research. AAMC, 1990
A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research. NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research
-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
An interest may be defined as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.
Conflicts of interest are situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigators judgement in conducting or reporting research. AAMC, 1990
A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research. NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research
-
Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process author, reviewer, or editor has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected.
Authors: When they submit a manuscript, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.
-
REVIEWERS CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Collaborated with the authors recently,
Based in the same institution as the authors,
Are in direct competition with the authors,
Have personal conflict or close personal
relationship or association with the authors,
Have a financial interest in the manuscript.
-
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Researcher trust the data publish by other researcher, they use the information blindly (system of trust) without checking them.
(Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell 2005)
Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results
Bias reporting
-
Fabrication means that data is quite simply
invented.
Falsification the existing data is pruned to
take on the required form or massaged to
give the desired result
It is also means manipulating research
materials, equipment, or processes, or
changing or omitting data or results such
that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
-
PLAGIARISM
the Latin plagiare, to steal
Plagiarism is stealing the work of another and presenting it as if it were ones own.
The verb to plagiarize To take and use as one's own (the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another person);
If you steal from one author, its plagiarism; if you steal from many, its research. - Wilson Mizner (18761933)
-
TO AVOID PLAGRIASM
Always acknowledge every source used whether paraphrased, summarized, or enclosed quotations.
When paraphrasing and/or summarizing keep the exact meaning of the other authors ideas using a new vocabulary and sentence structure. (take note).
Dont depend on the secondary summary or review. Always consult the primary literature.
Avoid cutting and pasting from the Internet
-
STEPS IN WRITING A PARAPHRASE
Paraphrasing involves changing a text so that it is quite different from the source, while retaining the meaning.
1. Read the original carefully.
2. Substitute words and rearrange sentences, Check about the precise meanings.
3. Check the meaning of your paraphrase against the original.
4. Identify the source you are paraphrasing.
-
SELF PLAGIARISM
Is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the Author republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work.
Roig identifies a few types of self-plagiarism:
Republishing the same paper that is published elsewhere without notifying the reader nor publisher of the journal
Publishing a significant study as smaller studies to increase the number of publications rather than publishing one large study
Reusing portions of a previously written (published or unpublished text).
-
HOW TO AVOID SELF PLAGIARISM
Short quotes from a previously published
article should be set in quotation marks and
original version cited
Permission must be requested when large
sections are reproduced
Methods and literature reviews should be
paraphrased.
-
CITATIONS
Citations express the use of information ( Croni
n, 1981).
citations are signposts left behind
after information has been utilized, Linda C.
Smith (1989)
A formalized account of the information use an
d can be taken as a strong indicator of receptio
n at this level (Glnzel and Schoepflin, 1995).
-
IMPACT FACTOR
The ISI Impact Factor (IF) simply relates the citations a journal has received in a given year to the number of papers it has published in the preceding two years. They select two years because 25% of all citations in the current years literature were to papers that were only two to three years old and so it was decided upon to use
The prior two cited years as the basis for calculating a current year impact factor. However, two years is not enough for an article to reach its peak in citations, thus 5 years IF is introduced.
Journals with high Impact Factors are more prestigious.
and have higher rejection rates.
-
The 2014 impact factor of a journal would be
calculated as follows:
2014 impact factor = A/B.
where:
A = the number of times that all items
published in that journal in 20012 and 2013
were cited by indexed publications during 2014.
B = the total number of "citable items"
published by that journal in 2006 and 2007.
("Citable items" for this calculation are usually
articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not
editorials or letters to the editor).
-
Factors affecting IF calculation
Research area: Basic or applied; Basic research journal has high impact factor
Type of document : Review Journal has high impact
Language: English language journal has high impact (USA)
Self citation:
Editorial and letters to the editors are not included; journal with high citable letters and editorial may has high impact F