Some Legal Problems of the Periodical Notice to Contributors
0
Citation
0
Reference
20
Related Paper
Abstract:
The periodical notice to contributors is essentially believed as an invitation in the course of entering into a covenant with the contributors to the periodicals. Once the consensus between the editorial department and the authors has reached, the contents of periodical notice to contributors will become one part of the contract. The contents of periodical notice to contributors should conform to the legal regulations and reflect the balanced rights between the periodical department and the authors. The editorial department should not utilize its advantageous status to restrict the rights of authors with the terms in the periodical notice to contributors.Keywords:
Covenant
Cite
Currently science editing is a discipline which covers various issues in science writing, ethical editing, peer review, publishing and scientometrics. Authorship in scholarly journals, and its abuses, is one of the key topics in this discipline and shapes its core values. The basic principles of authorship underlie the foundations of research, academic promotion and advancement in science. It's hardly possible to create knowledge and scientific products without following fair authorship criteria.
Though a universally acceptable definition of authorship does not exist, there are two main components of any definition which have gained wide recognition - credit and responsibility. Journal publications are the end result of creative work of individuals, or increasingly multi-expert research teams, who are aiming to gain credit from the scientific community and to contribute to knowledge creation. Traditional authorship models, largely based on the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), consider the authors' byline in the papers as the key for attributing credit. Securing a place in the byline is itself a credit, whilst taking the first place is often the reward for contributing the most to the multi-authored work (1). However, credit brings with it responsibility, which is straightforward in solo work but quite complicated for multi-authored publications, the hallmark of science communication in our time.
A recent essay in European Science Editing questioned the objectivity of attributing responsibility based on the traditional model of authorship (2) and favoured the model of contributorship, originated 15 years ago by the former deputy editor of JAMA, Drummond Rennie, and strongly supported by the former editor of BMJ, Richard Smith (3, 4). Apparently, the contributorship model fits well the current trends in multi-expert research cooperation and publishing, where contribution and responsibility are to be shared by generators of ideas, technical staff, research supervisors, and professional writers. Perhaps it can be the best option for fair and transparent authorship in papers on large trials, quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This alternative model disfavours instances of guest, gift and honorary authorship and encourages honest listing of all contributors, including those who might refrain from putting their names in the papers (ie ghost-writers).
Both traditional and alternative models emphasise responsibility as the virtue of research integrity. In most research institutions in the mainstream science countries the main responsibility is often attributed to the corresponding author or authors, predominantly principal investigators or senior researcher coordinators, permanently available for communication before and after publication. These are usually listed last in the traditional authors' bylines or named as guarantors in the contributorship model. Responsibility, however, should be shared by all contributors, and this is why recent guidance from learned associations suggests that each author should take responsibility for a specific part of the work and, at the same time, should be familiar with the whole paper (5). Collective responsibility may prevent instances of research misconduct, such as plagiarism, early in the process of research and writing.
Despite the undisputed advantages of the alternative model, some principal issues with authorship remain unresolved. First of all, the extent of minimal and substantive contributions warranting credits remains poorly distinguished. How do you credit those who do not meet criteria of authors and substantive contributors but help produce a good quality article? Originators of research ideas give a start to the process of research. Laboratory technicians perform laboratory tests and supply a wealth of essential raw data for original research papers, despite the lack of theoretical knowledge and capacity to interpret the data. Skilled statisticians merely analyse the raw data but transform elementary facts into statistically significant results and evidence, a cornerstone of a publishable scientific article. Professional writers rectify writing and make the manuscript attractive for potential readers and future authors. Peer reviewers comment on the whole manuscript and suggest changes, increasing the chances of publication in a high-impacting journal. Do they deserve a mere acknowledgement or a place in the authors' byline? Will they all agree to accept a credit of minor contribution and continue working in a research team thereafter? A recent suggestion of movie-style listing of all contributors as a way-out is an option which stemmed from the contributorship model (6), but it is definitely not suitable in scholarly publications.
It should be stressed that there are different types of scientific articles. The traditional authorship model is still suitable for editorials, narrative reviews, small original papers, case reports and letters written by one or a few authors. Is it then necessary to scrap this model entirely for all types of articles? Is it possible to have both models as an interim measure, or to move gradually to the alternative model and eventually adopt it as the only option? To answer these questions, we will need yet another 15 yr, if not more. In the meantime, inappropriate authorship will continue to blossom, devaluing the essence of authorship and distorting science.
Current authorship patterns are widely confounding the assessment of research performance and give credit to those who obtain funding and research grants, allowing individuals and research teams to survive and reshape scientific landscapes. A prime example is the h index, a reflection of research productivity and citability, increasingly accepted as a research performance indicator for individual authors, research groups and institutions in most countries (7). The traditional model with its limitations and particularly with the uncertainties of substantive contribution in multi-authored articles complicates the interpretation of the h index. The alternative model is not capable of providing a solution either. As a result, we still witness the growth of unjustifiably multi-authored articles of all types. In fact, recent evidence from pharmacy and pharmacotherapy, a rapidly developing and influential field of science, indicates that the prevalence of honorary authorship is 14.3%, reaching 29.4% with articles authored by five or more individuals (8).
Awarding undue credits to those who attain (honorary) authorship by merely holding a senior research post and obliging subordinates to put their names in potentially citable papers drives a circle of misconduct. Honorary authors benefit from the paper by artificially boosting their scientometric profile, obtaining new funds and perpetuating the vicious circle.
Is there a way out of the current situation? Authorship issues may find a solution if all individuals and professional bodies involved in scientific publishing stick to the rules of honest and transparent research reporting. Research institutions should accept policies encouraging fair authorship. Authors should avoid misconduct by familiarising themselves with the accepted rules and by adhering to their institutions' strategies. Editors and reviewers are in a position to spot instances of inappropriate authorship in journal submissions and suggest corrections. The latter is particularly possible when small papers with unreasonably long authors' lists enter the editorial process (eg case reports, editorials, narrative reviews and short communications). Publishers and editors may further improve authorship patterns by adopting available guidelines, publicising acceptable criteria in the instructions for authors, and requiring authorship statements from each author. Finally, regional and international learned associations may take the lead in resolving the issues by developing or updating editorial policies. Currently, most biomedical journals accept the ICMJE criteria of authorship, a part of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, last updated in 2009 (9). Further guidance for medical editors is available from the policy statements of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME, 2007) (10), The American Physical Society (APS, 2002) (11), and The Ecological Society of America (ESA, 2000) (12), who have adopted their field-specific guidelines.
Position statements on authorship and acknowledgements, adjacent to the ICMJE criteria, are also clearly presented in the EASE guidelines (EASE, 2011) (1) and in the editorial policy paper of the Council of Science Editors (CSE, 2012) (13). The adherence to the general and field-specific guidelines on authorship may be instrumental in curbing the conflicts globally and particularly in the emerging science countries, where a large proportion of journals still lack authorship policies and do not adhere to the accepted criteria (14).
Objectivity (philosophy)
Promotion (chess)
Scholarly Communication
Publication
Cite
Citations (15)
Over the past year, Plant Physiology featured a series of articles focused on agricultural ethics. This series is a collection presented by authors who consider the morals and ethics surrounding the global issues related to natural ecosystems, food production systems, and the feeding of the world's
Ethical standards
Cite
Citations (0)
ABSTRACT The rights and responsibilities of journal editors, when allegations of research misconduct are made, are still evolving. One of the issues that editors must consider is whether and how to communicate with their readership after notice that an allegation of research misconduct has been made about a published article. On receiving such notice, some editors have issued an ‘expression of concern’ to inform their readers of a potential problem. This article provides an analysis of the 16 expressions of concern that have been issued, how and when they were issued, and what happened next. Although this tool is relatively new, editors should consider it as part of their armament for ensuring the integrity of the research record during the sometimes lengthy period that misconduct investigations can take, and should develop policies regarding its use.
Allegation
Misconduct
Scientific Misconduct
Audience measurement
Research Integrity
Cite
Citations (17)
Cite
Citations (4)
With the combination of the characteristics of scientific journals,it probed into such issures as right of publication,right of revision,right to integrity of works protection,right of authorship,in the practice of editing scientific journals,etc.In the practice of editing scientific journals and on the premise of fulfillingreasonable care obligation,it was pointed out that editors should respect the author's right of publication,exercise editor's right of revising,protect the integrality of the works and require authors to use the right of signing correctly.Meanwhile,the editors should make good use of the their won copyright of journals,reduce the probability of infringement to ensure the lawful rights and interests of authors and journals.
Obligation
Right to know
Scientific evidence
Cite
Citations (0)
Journal of Art and Human is an international peer-reviewed and periodical, open access, electronic journal that publishes scientific studies written in Turkish and English in all sub-branches of social sciences, especially in art disciplines.
Aim:
The aim of the journal is to contribute to the scientific field literature by publishing original studies in all sub-fields of social sciences and interdisciplinary fields, especially in art disciplines, and to support authors in international indexes.
Scope:
The journal is an international peer-reviewed, open access, electronic journal that includes theoretical and applied research, review and review articles covering all sub-fields of art disciplines and social sciences, and publishes twice a year in Winter (December) and Summer (June) periods.
The journal includes works that have not been published anywhere before. Since it has not been stated or determined that it has been published anywhere before, the legal consequences that may arise regarding the copyrights of the published works belong entirely to the authors.
Studies written in Turkish and English are published with the approval of the Editorial Board. For Turkish studies, there must be an English summary and English keywords.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees with the decision of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board may have the work reviewed by more than two referees if it deems necessary. Primary research articles will be subject to external peer review. The names of the author (s) and referees are kept confidential mutually. If the Editorial Board deems it necessary, necessary corrections may be requested from the author (s), taking into account the referee opinions. The final decision on the study to be published is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the opinion of the majority of referees.
The publication rights of the published articles belong to Journal of Art and Human. Quotation cannot be made without showing the source.
Legal responsibilities arising from the content of the studies published in the journal belong to the author (s). The journal does not accept any legal responsibility in these matters.
Editorial board
Cite
Citations (0)
Cite
Citations (644)
Single authorship was the norm eons ago. According to rabbinical tradition, Moses wrote the five books of the Jewish bible, the Torah, meaning ‘Instruction’ or ‘Law’. Christian scholars credit God with breathing out the Bible. Before the mid-20th century, landmark scientific works from giants, such as Newton, Einstein and Fermi, were single authored. Although single authors wrote the vast majority (>98%) of important medical articles a century ago, this has become a rarity; <5% are now single authored. Meanwhile, the number of multi-authored articles has escalated, many of which list individuals who made insignificant contributions (1). At times, the list of authors reaches astronomical numbers, occupying as much space as the corresponding abstract. Extreme examples include a report in the physical sciences on the Large Hadron Collider listing almost 3000 authors, and a clinical trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine listing 974 authors (2). The basis for this rise in multiple authors does not simply reside in the complexities of current medical bioscience or the need for large multicentred clinical trials. Unmerited authorship is rampant. Twenty to thirty percent of medical science authors do not contribute substantially to the eventual peer-reviewed publication, particularly in large, multi-authored articles (1,3). One facet of undeserved authorship increasingly occurs in the form of ‘honorary authorship’ (ie, named authors who do not significantly contribute), which is granted either to chairs of departments as a convention or to more senior authors to boost the paper (4). Another is ‘ghost writers’ (unnamed authors who do contribute), employed by some biotechnology companies, aiming to lever ‘key opinion leaders’ and, so, portray the publication as originating in the academic domain, unsullied by commercial interests (5).
To assess original articles appropriately, scientists and clinicians must know the proper authorship and the origin and execution of the study, devoid of ghost writing or other bias. For the academic, authorship represents the means by which peers perceive their scholarly work. This establishes their reputation, productivity, grant support and opportunity for promotion.
The order in which authors are listed quantitatively identifies credit. Although there are some differences among disciplines, most have the authors listed according to the magnitude of their involvement in the work, placing the principal investigator last. Because some journals, such as Gastroenterology, limit authorship lists in the references to contain a maximum of three followed by the near afterthought ‘et al’, the senior author may select the third position so as to appear in any subsequent citations. Many publications, however, allow up to six authors before ‘et al’ (eg, Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hepatology) to be listed in the references. Thus, this practice has disappeared.
To accommodate the growing number of authors per article, institutions and journals have established guidelines that seek to clarify the role, involvement and responsibility of each author. Since 1985, a voluntary, closed-membership group of select general medical editors (the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) has provided guidance on authorship that continually evolves with time. This committee of editors provides clarification on accountability, roles and responsibilities of authors, fraud, conflict of interest and clinical trial registration. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors “recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND final approval of the version to be published; AND agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved” (6). In its instructions to authors, the Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology fulfills some of these criteria: requesting a letter to indicate that all authors have participated in the research, and have reviewed and agree with the contents of the article. Few articles, however, clarify the actual contributions of the authors.
Authorship assigns responsibility and attributes credit. Substantive contribution must be a primary criterion. This should include significant involvement in the three components of any scientific publication: its original conception and design; implementation of the study including data collection and analysis; and, finally, writing major sections of the manuscript while being accountable for all of its content. Such decisions about authorship and order in the publication is best identified by the research team engaging in an open conversation. This should begin with the design of the study and continue throughout its implementation and manuscript submission. Recognizing individuals whose role represents a limited contribution may best be communicated through an ‘Acknowledgement’ section.
Multiple authors are necessary in this increasingly complex biomedical world. Even in biblical times, 40 different authors from three continents, writing in three different languages, created the Bible. Moses required help to complete Deuteronomy as the last portion covered a time after his death.
Listing (finance)
Cite
Citations (14)
Events at the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) have prompted Canadian Family Physician (CFP) to examine its relationship with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Fortunately, our Editorial Advisory Board recently met to discuss this issue, and, despite the fact that I have officially resigned, I thought readers should know how this issue was handled during my tenure.
The controversy surrounding the Canadian Medical Association’s dismissal of John Hoey and Anne Marie Todkill appears to focus on editorial independence; whether an association journal can offer complete independence to its editors; and what, precisely, is meant by that term.
The World Association of Medical Editors defines editorial independence in fairly black-and-white terms: the editor has complete control over material that goes into the journal, whether or not it conflicts with the commercial success of the journal.1 The only restraint they cite is that views expressed in the journal should be “responsible,” although this term is not defined. Most editors believe that they should have complete control over “scientific articles,” although George Lundberg was fired from the Journal of the American Medical Association for publishing a “research” article that was interpreted by some as biased political commentary.
Gray areas begin to appear, however, in news or editorial sections of journals. If editorials constantly reflect a limited philosophical or political point of view, then the interests of the readers and the organization are not well served. News items, including investigative journalism, fall into a category that could, conceivably, be manipulated by an editor who wishes to promote a specific philosophical viewpoint. According to the Public Broadcasting Service guidelines in the United States, “content evaluation is an art, not a science, requiring professional judgments about the value of the content in relation to a broad range of informational, aesthetic, technical, and other considerations.”2 If it is an art, then it is subject to bias.
Given these circumstances, should an editor of an association journal have complete editorial independence? Should the owner of a journal, especially one that purports to represent a spectrum of physicians, just hand over the reins of editorial power to a person who might use them as he or she pleases? Can an editor be fired only for gross failure of editorial judgment, theft, or sexual harassment? Could the CMAJ breakdown occur at CFP?
The structure of governance is somewhat different here. The Scientific Editor is hired by the College, with the approval of the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Committee, and is responsible to the Publisher, who is also hired by the College. At CFP the Publisher has overall responsibility for the journal and the Scientific Editor is responsible for the content. Editorial Advisory Board members are appointed by the College Executive Committee and are ultimately responsible to it. They are not appointees of the Scientific Editor or Publisher. Although their work for the journal puts them in contact with the publishing staff, they also have a responsibility to represent the College during regular meetings.
Given the shades of gray in interpreting what is a responsible position for an editor to take on non-scientific material, I believe that editorial independence cannot be rigidly defined. It boils down to a respectful relationship between editor and publisher or owner. The editor should be free to publish articles about topics that might be sensitive for the association, but needs to be cognizant of the politics of that organization. When publishing controversial material, opposing perspectives should be balanced and the editor should encourage the organization to submit editorials or rebuttals to published material so that readers can see multiple points of view. This is true for any controversy. The publisher or owners should feel that the editor will respect the association and not abuse editorial power.
This is a delicate balance. When the relationship between editor and publisher or owner deteriorates, for whatever reason, a mechanism must be available to deal with the consequences. It is difficult to prescribe a respectful relationship, but I suggest, as a starting point, that the definition for editorial independence proposed by the World Association of Medical Editors be adopted as the main guideline for CFP.
When Scientific Editors are hired, they should be informed of these guidelines and be given specific criteria by which their performance will be evaluated at regular intervals. When the Publisher takes exception to the Scientific Editor’s choice of material, and when agreeing to disagree is not an option, the Chief Executive Officer should be the first level of consultation. If that fails, then the Editorial Advisory Board should be consulted, given its joint responsibility to the College and to the journal. Should this process still not produce a resolution of the crisis, I propose that an independent, ad-hoc group be formed to mediate between the College and the Scientific Editor, just as the Journal Oversight Committee was meant to do at CMAJ. This process offers a mechanism to resolve serious issues before they reach crisis levels.
What has been my experience as Scientific Editor at CFP? I am very pleased to report that during the last 11 years I have never had any interference with editorial content for the journal. We have published editorials and occasionally other articles that were critical of the College, but there was no censure from the College. There were times when I was asked about certain content, but after I had justified its publication and offered the College space to address the issues, there was never any pressure to alter an article. While there were times when I would notify College staff of upcoming articles, so they would have time to be prepared, I never had to obtain their permission and I never had to have an article preapproved. After Jerome Kassirer left the New England Journal of Medicine, I asked then-Publisher of CFP, Peter Taylor, “What would it take to get me fired?”
“Quite a lot,” was the answer. “Don’t worry, Tony. The bullet would have to pass through me first.”
In summary, I have had complete editorial autonomy at the journal during my tenure as Scientific Editor. The new Scientific Editor has been hired with more specific evaluation criteria that will be used regularly, and a dispute-resolution mechanism has been worked out and is awaiting final approval. I am confident that these steps will preserve editorial independence at CFP. Thank you, CMAJ, for stimulating us to examine this important question, and thank you, College of Family Physicians of Canada, for maintaining editorial integrity.
Independence
Medical journal
Cite
Citations (0)
Ghost authorship occurs when someone makes a significant contribution to a manuscript without due acknowledgement of their role. Guest authorship, in contrast, occurs when an individual is named as an author of a manuscript when they do not meet authorship criteria. Both are disturbingly common.1
The preliminary results of a recent survey of corresponding authors conducted by the editorial staff of JAMA found that over one-quarter of articles published in six major general medical journals in 2008 had guest authors (range by journal: 16%-39%) and nearly 10% had ghost authors (range by journal: 2%-11%).1 The prevalence of guest authors and ghost authors was highest in Nature Medicine (39%) and New England Journal of Medicine (11%) respectively.
Ghost and guest authorship are breaches of professional ethics. They violate readers’ trust in scientific reporting and have the potential to distort medical literature. Editors and readers of medical journals need to be confident that all listed authors have indeed made substantial contributions and that no major contributors have gone unnamed.2 Transparent and complete identification of contributors to research publication is essential to scientific integrity.
This is particularly important in the context of manuscripts reporting on pharmaceutical trials with potential economic ramifications, since significant problems related to the use of ghost authorship have been reported in this area.3 In the most pernicious examples, ghost authors, who may include professional writers, researchers and statisticians, are directly or indirectly employed by a pharmaceutical or medical device company to write a research protocol and manuscript, and a guest author who is respected in the field of research is paid to append his or her name to the manuscript and submit it to a medical journal for publication.4
Open Medicine, like other medical journals, has instituted a ghost and guest authorship policy to promote ethical authorship practices. A key feature of our policy is the requirement that authors provide a contributor statement describing the specific contribution of each author and stating how each author meets the authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which Open Medicine endorses.5
Open Medicine recognizes that professional medical writers make legitimate contributions to research publication and advocates for the routine and transparent disclosure of any and all professional writer involvement in manuscript preparation. The Journal’s policy states that professional medical writers whose contribution to a manuscript qualifies them as an author according to the ICMJE criteria must be listed as authors, with their affiliations and competing interests provided and their funding source named. Professional medical writers whose contribution does not qualify them for authorship according to the ICMJE criteria should be named in the Acknowledgements section, with their contribution clearly described and their funding source named. Authors who have used the services of a medical writer and are unclear how those services should be defined are asked to contact the Open Medicine editors to obtain clarification as to the appropriate place in the manuscript to acknowledge and describe their contribution. We have included in our author guidelines a checklist adapted from Gotzsche et al.6 to help submitting authors in the appropriate disclosure of writing assistance.
As with other significant breaches of scientific conduct, articles found to have ghost or guest authors will be retracted by Open Medicine. In accordance with World Association of Medical Editors guidelines,2 the editors of Open Medicine will also inform the authors’ institutions of the breach and ban further contributions by these authors to the Journal; publish a notice on the Journal’s website that a manuscript used ghost or guest authors, along with the names of the responsible companies (if relevant) and the authors; provide the names of those involved if contacted by the media or government organizations; and share their experiences with other journal editors.
Open Medicine strongly believes in transparent reporting. Ghost and guest authorship are dishonest, and the Journal editors intend to maintain processes that improve public accountability and the credibility of scientific research reporting. We welcome feedback on our policy and suggestions on how we can work toward improving the integrity of medical publishing.
Acknowledgement
Medical journal
Cite
Citations (10)