J Korean Med Sci.  2016 Sep;31(9):1351-1354. 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

• Gasparyan
• Yessirkepov M
• Voronov AA
• Gorin SV
• Koroleva A
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2468265
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351

Abstract

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

Keyword

Scientific Associations; Guidelines; Publication Ethics; Editorial Policies; Periodicals as Topic

MeSH Terms

Authorship
Editorial Policies
Humans
Peer Review/ethics
Publishing/*ethics
Scientific Misconduct

Reference

1. Resnik DB, Tyler AM, Black JR, Kissling G. Authorship policies of scientific journals. J Med Ethics. 2016; 42:199–202.

2. Gasparyan AY, Akazhanov NA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1453–1456.

3. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Scientific author names: errors, corrections, and identity profiles. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2016; 26:169–173.

4. Liesegang TJ, Bartley GB. Footnotes, acknowledgments, and authorship: toward greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158:1103–1104.

5. Teunis T, Nota SP, Schwab JH. Do corresponding authors take responsibility for their work? A covert survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473:729–735.

6. Perkel JM. The manuscript-editing marketplace. Nature. 2016; 531:127–128.

7. Ho RC, Mak KK, Tao R, Lu Y, Day JR, Pan F. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:74.

8. Moylan EC, Harold S, O'Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014; 15:55.

9. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:360–364.

10. Ancker JS, Flanagin A. A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007; 13:147–157.

11. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:600–608.

12. Roig M. Avoiding unethical writing practices. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012; 50:3385–3387.

13. Bartley GB, Albert DM, Liesegang TJ. Choosing our words carefully: plagiarism in the internet age. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121:807–808.

14. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, Kitas GD. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croat Med J. 2014; 55:271–280.

15. Pulverer B. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J. 2015; 34:2483–2485.

16. Gewin V. Retractions: a clean slate. Nature. 2014; 507:389–391.

17. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1545–1552.

18. Gutierrez FR, Beall J, Forero DA. Spurious alternative impact factors: the scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays. 2015; 37:474–476.

19. Begley CG, Buchan AM, Dirnagl U. Robust research: institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature. 2015; 525:25–27.

20. Gasparyan AY. Familiarizing with science editors' associations. Croat Med J. 2011; 52:735–739.

21. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012; 489:179.

22. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas GD. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: a dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1010–1016.

23. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015; 350:h210.

24. Nolfi DA, Lockhart JS, Myers CR. Predatory publishing: what you don't know can hurt you. Nurse Educ. 2015; 40:217–219.

25. Das N, Das S. Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting? Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014; 24:19–24.

26. Ioannidis JP. A generalized view of self-citation: direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. J Psychosom Res. 2015; 78:7–11.

27. Heneberg P. From excessive journal self-cites to citation stacking: analysis of journal self-citation kinetics in search for journals, which boost their scientometric indicators. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0153730.