DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

  • Misra, Durga Prasanna (Department of Clinical Immunology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS)) ;
  • Ravindran, Vinod (Centre for Rheumatology) ;
  • Agarwal, Vikas (Department of Clinical Immunology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS))
  • 투고 : 2018.07.20
  • 심사 : 2018.08.30
  • 발행 : 2018.11.12

초록

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. What is research integrity? https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter1/page02.htm. Updated 2006. Accessed July 2, 2018.
  2. Poster E, Pearson GS, Pierson C. Publication ethics: its importance to readers, authors, and the profession. Perspect Psychiatr Care 2012;48(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2011.00323.x
  3. Committee on Publication Ethics - core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices. Updated 2018. Accessed July 16, 2018.
  4. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J 2014;55(1):61-72. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2014.55.61
  5. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 2011;31(11):1409-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
  6. Gasparyan AY. Authorship and contributorship in scholarly journals. J Korean Med Sci 2013;28(6):801-2. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.6.801
  7. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatol Int 2013;33(2):277-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2
  8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org. Updated 2018. Accessed July 8, 2018.
  9. 2017 ICMJE recommendations. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Updated 2017. Accessed July 20, 2018.
  10. Dyer C. Lancet withdraws research paper and warns authors about rules of “gift authorship”. BMJ 2008;337:a1711. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1711
  11. The Lancet. The role and responsibilities of coauthors. Lancet 2008;372(9641):778.
  12. Adams J. Collaborations: the rise of research networks. Nature 2012;490(7420):335-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a
  13. Ghajarzadeh M. Guest authors in an Iranian journal. Developing World Bioeth 2014;14(1):15-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12002
  14. Schrock JB, Kraeutler MJ, McCarty EC. Trends in authorship characteristics in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014. Am J Sports Med 2016;44(7):1857-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516639955
  15. Jawad F. Research ethics: authorship and publication. J Pak Med Assoc 2013;63(12):1560-2.
  16. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gorin SV, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. J Korean Med Sci 2016;31(9):1351-4. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351
  17. Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT. Updated 2018. Accessed July 13, 2018.
  18. Representing contributions by CRediT. https://blog.f1000.com/2016/02/10/beyond-authorship-recognising-the-contributions-to-research/. Updated 2016. Accessed July 13, 2018.
  19. Phillippi JC, Likis FE, Tilden EL. Authorship grids: practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication. Res Nurs Health 2018;41(2):195-208. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21856
  20. Co-author agreement. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/co-authors-gone-bad-how-to-avoid-publishing-conflicts. Updated 2014. Accessed July 9, 2018.
  21. Masic I. The malversations of authorship - current status in academic community and how to prevent it. Acta Inform Med 2018;26(1):4-9. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2018.26.4-9
  22. Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv 2017;3(11):e1700404. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700404
  23. Liao QJ, Zhang YY, Fan YC, Zheng MH, Bai Y, Eslick GD, et al. Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: a comparison between 2015 and 2010. Sci Eng Ethics 2018.24(2):629-45.
  24. Rivera H. Inappropriate authorship and kinship in research evaluation. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33(13):e105. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e105
  25. Reviewer author co-authorship. https://publicationethics.org/case/suspected-contact-between-reviewer-and-author-led-coauthorship-reviewer. Updated 2009. Accessed July 9, 2018.
  26. Selling authors names to prestigious journals. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/. Updated 2014. Accessed July 7, 2018.
  27. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Ravina A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac Sanit 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009.
  28. Journal rankings in rheumatology. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2745&page=1&total_size=60. Updated 2018. Accessed June 28, 2018.
  29. Peer review. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/editors/peer-review/32888. Updated 2018. Accessed July 20, 2018.
  30. What is peer review? https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html. Updated 2018. Accessed July 20, 2018.
  31. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud--hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015;373(25):2393-5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330
  32. Dyer O. Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. BMJ 2015;350:h1783. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1783
  33. Greene J. Fraudsters strike peer review: stolen passwords, fake reviews threaten biomedical literature. Ann Emerg Med 2015;65(4):A13-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.02.017
  34. Cheung BM. Fake peer review - too good to be true. Postgrad Med J 2017;93(1102):498. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134506
  35. Dadkhah M, Kahani M, Borchardt G. A method for improving the integrity of peer review. Sci Eng Ethics 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9.
  36. Hadi MA. Fake peer-review in research publication: revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. Int J Pharm Pract 2016;24(5):309-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12307
  37. Dadkhah M, Lagzian M, Borchardt G. Identity theft in the academic world leads to junk science. Sci Eng Ethics 2018;24(1):287-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x
  38. Peer review fraud. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/china-cracks-down-after-investigation-finds-massive-peer-review-fraud. Updated 2017. Accessed July 7, 2018.
  39. Beadling L, Leopold SS. Editorial: why some authors make bad choices--peer review for hire and other sad stories. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473(8):2441-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4356-0
  40. Editorial independence. https://forbetterscience.com/2016/02/15/oa-publishers-hindawi-vs-frontiers-similar-yet-different/. Updated 2016. Accessed July 14, 2018.
  41. Qi X, Deng H, Guo X. Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview. Postgrad Med J 2017;93(1102):499-503. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-133969
  42. Institutional and professional email addresses. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/06/21/institutional-versus-commercial-email-addresses-which-one-to-use-in-your-publications/. Updated 2018. Accessed July 15, 2018.
  43. Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Endovitskiy DA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Researcher and author profiles: opportunities, advantages, and limitations. J Korean Med Sci 2017;32(11):1749-56. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1749
  44. Publons. https://publons.com/home/. Updated 2018. Accessed August 22, 2018.
  45. Verma IM. Preprint servers facilitate scientific discourse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017;114(48):12630. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716857114
  46. Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet 2015;31(5):221-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006
  47. Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Patel J, Moylan EC. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open 2015;5(9):e008707. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707
  48. Should peer review stop being anonymous? https://massivesci.com/articles/peer-review-anonymous-signed/. Updated 2018. Accessed August 22, 2018.
  49. Hvistendahl M. China's publication bazaar. Science 2013;342(6162):1035-9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6162.1035
  50. Woolley KL, Lew RA, Stretton S, Ely JA, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, et al. Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27(6):1175-82. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2011.573546
  51. Portable peer review services. https://www.nature.com/news/company-offers-portable-peer-review-1.12418. Updated 2013. Accessed July 15, 2018.
  52. Masic I, Begic E, Donev DM, Gajovic S, Gasparyan AY, Jakovljevic M, et al. Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croat Med J 2016;57(6):527-9. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527
  53. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Updated editorial guidance for quality and reliability of research output. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33(35):e247. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e247

피인용 문헌

  1. Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils vol.34, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e6
  2. Unjustified Authorship Should Not Be Tolerated vol.34, pp.45, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e310
  3. Bridging the Gap with Clinicians: The Issue of Underrecognition of Pathologists and Radiologists as Scientific Authors in Contemporary Medical Literature vol.26, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00125-z
  4. Innovative Strategies for Peer Review vol.35, pp.20, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138
  5. Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19 vol.39, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05405-9
  6. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers vol.58, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
  7. Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers vol.36, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e144
  8. No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications vol.69, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.ijo_2221_20
  9. ¿Quién es autor? Las autorías múltiples, criterios y lineamientos vol.44, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2021.2.1758
  10. A new method of co-author credit allocation based on contributor roles taxonomy: proof of concept and evaluation using papers published in PLOS ONE vol.126, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04075-x
  11. ‘Some glimpses of an Asian PhD journey in tourism’ - An ethnodrama vol.40, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100908
  12. Elusive tuberculous meningitis with rare neurological complication of longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis: a case report vol.7, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-021-00445-y