Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica / Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research

Resumen: Los Comités Editoriales de revistas de corriente principal se ven enfrentados ocasionalmente a con ductas éticas inapropiadas en los manuscritos recibidos. El Comité de Ética en las publicaciones (COPE) ofrece recomendaciones para los editores respecto a cómo actuar frente a la sospecha de falta de ética en los manuscritos, ya sea recibidos o publicados. Cuando se pesquisa una mala práctica durante el proceso de revisión por pares, el manuscrito es rechazado, no obstante, si la conducta ina propiada es detectada después de la publicación de manuscrito, se procede a retractar la publicación. Revista Chilena de Pediatría no ha sido exenta a este tipo de conflictos. En este artículo analizamos los distintos aspectos relacionados con la falta de integridad de las publicaciones, como son las autorías, el plagio y el conflicto de intereses. Podemos concluir que las malas prácticas ocurren principalmente por desconocimiento de los autores, más que por intención de fraude. Se espera que el presente ma nuscrito logre instruir y sensibilizar a nuestros investigadores, respecto a las buenas prácticas en la investigación y publicación, y, contribuir, en lo posible, a prevenir que estas acciones ocurran en los manuscritos enviados a nuestra Revista.

Abstract: Editorial Boards of mainstream journals occasionally face ethical misconducts in received manus cripts. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides recommendations for editors on how to deal with suspected ethical misconduct in either received or published manuscripts. The manus cript is rejected when malpractice is observed during the peer review process, however, if the mis conduct is detected after the publication, the publication will be retracted. The Revista Chilena de Pediatría (Chilean Journal of Pediatrics) has not been exempt from these type of conflicts. In this article, we analyze different aspects regarding the lack of integrity in publications, such as authorship, plagiarism, and conflict of interest. We can conclude that malpractices take place mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the authors rather than intent to defraud. It is expected that this article will suc ceed in instructing and sensitizing our researchers on good practices in research and publication, and contribute, as far as possible, to prevent this actions in the manuscripts sent to our Journal.

Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.

Duplicate Publication Rate Decline in Korean Medical Journals

The purpose of this study was to examine trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical articles indexed in the KoreaMed database from 2004 to 2009, before and after a campaign against scientific misconduct launched by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors in 2006. The study covered period from 2007 to 2012; and 5% of the articles indexed in KoreaMed were retrieved by random sampling. Three authors reviewed full texts of the retrieved articles. The pattern of duplicate publication, such as copy, salami slicing (fragmentation), and aggregation (imalas), was also determined. Before the launching ethics campaign, the national duplication rate in medical journals was relatively high: 5.9% in 2004, 6.0% in 2005, and 7.2% in 2006. However, duplication rate steadily declined to 4.5% in 2007, 2.8% in 2008, and 1.2 % in 2009. Of all duplicated articles, 53.4% were classified as copies, 27.8% as salami slicing, and 18.8% as aggregation (imalas). The decline in duplicate publication rate took place as a result of nationwide campaigns and monitoring by KoreaMed and KoreaMed Synapse, starting from 2006.

Ethical Issues of Multiple Publication

Duplicate publication is publishing of an article that is identical to or overlaps considerable parts with one that has been already published elsewhere. If one or more authors retain common authorship in two separate papers with the same context, the papers are considered to be duplicated, but not plagiarized. The corresponding author was usually the case, but the first author is changed frequently. The characteristics of duplicate publication in Korea are republication of paper in journals indexed in SCI database after publishing in Korean journal one or two years before. In almost all cases they are not cross referenced. In Korean cases of duplicate publication, duplicate submissions are not rare. Generally the title is modified, and the list of authors and the sample size undergo a minor change with trivial methodological changes. Multiple publications in Korean journals usually consist of fragmentation (salami slicing) publications and overlapping (imalas) publications. Duplicate publication is an unethical behavior because of the waste of resources such as valuable time of busy reviewers, editorial work and pages, space of indexing database, and delaying the publication time of other researcher's paper. Duplicate publication is a violation of international copyright law as well. Sometimes it can distort or overemphasize the results in meta-analysis studies because of overlapping of samples. To prevent duplicate publication, the editor should provide instructions regarding the journal's policy toward duplicate publication and should make authors to read the instruction in detail. Educational programs for the reviewers will reduce the incidence by letting them know why and how to detect duplicate publication.