Editorial: Ensuring standards in publication ethics.

Abstract

Increasingly, issues of violation of publication ethics have been detected in nursing academic publications (Pierson 2014). This form of misconduct does not only compromise scientific integrity, it may also be detrimental to patient care. Through acceptance of internationally recognised standards, the Journal of Clinical Nursing, implements the highest possible standard of publication ethics to ensure that the public and nursing professionals can trust and have confidence in the literature that we publish. In return, for clear and comprehensive guidance, we expect authors who choose to submit their manuscripts to Journal of Clinical Nursing to be aware of our publication ethics policies, at the very least to the point of reading and adhering to the instructions for authors' guidelines. Disappointingly, experience tells us that not all authors follow this practice. Several non-statutory bodies provide helpful guidance in relation to publication ethics, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The recent publication of Wiley's revised Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics provides further direction about what is and what is not ethically acceptable when publishing a paper. In earlier editorials in this journal, specific attention has been given to the issues of authorship and research integrity (Smith et al. 2014), and multiple outputs from single studies (Jackson et al. 2014). Additional issues of equal importance are addressed here, including conflict of interest, plagiarism, redundant publication, salami slicing and dual publication. The aim of this current editorial is to raise awareness of these issues and the running order does not imply any hierarchy of importance. It is important for authors to disclose all conflicts of interest. Readers need to be fully aware of any potential conflicting factors that may have had an influence on a study when they read a paper. It is difficult to provide a precise definition of a conflict of interest in relation to journal publications. However, it is most commonly construed as something that involves an individual taking action to satisfy their own private interests, against those of the wider community. Financial conflicts of interest may be related to corporate relationships, consultancies and funding provided from research grants. Non-financial conflicts of interest may include issues of personal relationships, professional and political affiliations. The Journal of Clinical Nursing requires all authors to state any potential conflicts of interest; this helps warrant the objectivity and integrity of our published manuscripts. Authors are asked to disclose their interests in anything that prevents or reduces their ability to present their work objectively. Some uncertainty surrounds the length of time a conflict of interest may last; most biomedical journals view three years as appropriate timeframe. Similarly, it is important that the peer review process is also free of conflicting interests, and this issue is addressed in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf). The peer review process requires trust; journal editors and readers have the right to expect that submitted work is the author's own. Plagiarism refers to near or verbatim copying of written material and is concisely defined by the US Office of Research Integrity as ‘both the theft and misappropriation of intellectual property and substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work’ (ORI 2014). Historically, it was problematic to detect cases of plagiarism in academic journals. However, with digital advancements and the development of software applications, it has become much easier to identify. COPE provides guidance for what to do in the case of suspected plagiarism (COPE 2013). At Journal of Clinical Nursing, we use plagiarism detecting software for all submissions to the journal and we also request all authors to complete a copyright assignment form to ascertain whether their article is an original piece of work, that it has not been published before, and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Plagiarism may appear a tempting alternative to honest authorship to the unprincipled academic, however, disciplinary procedures as well as loss of academic credibility awaits those who are caught. Redundant publication is a form of ethical violation that is most commonly detected during the peer review process. It usually takes the form of substantial republication of a study with little in the way of new original data or interpretive insights supplementing earlier publications. Duplicate publication is seen as a sub-set of redundant publication, contributing nothing new to existing body of knowledge in a particular area. As such, it is close to self-plagiarism. Despite the fact a paper has been written in an entirely different format from previous publication, the data set, analysis and conclusion may be identical an earlier publication. This has been defined as ‘authors reproducing verbatim content from their own publications' by the Council of Science Editors (Council of Science Editors 2012). With the number of nursing manuscripts being submitted to journals rising from year to year, and the increased pressure on academic staff members to publish, salami slicing is an area of ongoing concern. As highlighted in a recently published editorial (Jackson et al. 2014), salami slicing is a form of redundant publication that is characterised by similarities in methods or results, but need not involve text similarities. By definition, salami slicing or segmented publication involves the excessive division of one study into several publications, usually with the aim to bolster an academic's curriculum vitae. It involves breaking up a study into more than one paper, each of which can be viewed as a ‘slice’. If the slices of a broken study share the same hypothesis, sample population and methods it can be potentially deemed as unethical practice. The prevalence of this practice is difficult to determine and it forms a challenge and serious threat to journal editors. Unlike plagiarism, this form of ethical wrongdoing cannot be readily detected by software applications. The most worrying implication of salami slicing is the potential impact it can have on scientific knowledge and establishment of an evidence base. In general, most nursing guidelines and clinical decisions are made on basis of up to date published literature. Therefore, taking the same data into consideration several times may potentially distort the outcome of systematic reviews or meta-analysis, influencing clinical practice. However, and importantly, there are circumstances where multiple outputs from single studies are appropriate (for further information see: Jackson et al. 2014). The Journal of Clinical Nursing has a very clear process to avoid and prevent duplicate and redundant manuscripts being published. All studies that present new analyses of findings that have already been published need to identify the primary source. The editorial team also relies on the vigilance of our expert reviewers. There are several types of prior publication that are entirely acceptable; abstracts presented at conferences, dissertation of theses from university sources and results presented at professional meetings. The direct translation of a manuscript from one language to another can be a potentially contentious issue of publication ethics, which can often come down to editorial discretion. All journals must ensure that when they publish a directly translated paper that has been published elsewhere, permission has been gained from the original author and publisher to translate and report the material. Simultaneously submitting an academic paper to more than one journal at one time is termed dual submission. It constitutes another form of ethical transgression, as a paper has not been submitted in good faith by the author. Unscrupulous authors who engage in this form of practice usually do so to secure publication more quickly or to enhance their odds of getting a more positive response from the peer review process. ICMJE state that it is unethical for two or more journals to unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake the work of peer review, editing and potentially publish the same paper (ICMJE 2013). To curb such practice, most biomedical journals require authors to provide a detailed explanation in support of a request to withdraw a paper. Authors should also provide sufficient details about their chosen research methods to ensure that a reader can fully evaluate the significance of a study. This editorial has focused on several serious ethical issues that are faced by journal editors and the publishing community. Dealing with publication ethics is a two-way process; there is a clear need for greater accountability from authors as journals attempt to regulate every manuscript that is submitted. Authors should be aware that questions posed by journals in relation to ethical transparency extend beyond that of an administrative task. These questions are fundamental to help ensure the integrity and validity of a publication. There have been recent calls for interventions to decrease scientific misconduct at every level of nursing research, including publication (Fierz et al. 2014). First and foremost, it would appear essential to raise the awareness of this problem. One potential solution would be to embed the teaching of publication ethics within undergraduate and postgraduate nursing educational programmes. The integration of the principles of best practice in publishing could be fostered within nursing academic community, targeting all involved. This would convey the message that the ethics of publication is part, not separate from, the ethical practice of research. Appropriate information can be accessed easily, with the recent publication of Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics and guidance from COPE and ICMJE. Editors, reviewers and authors, all have a role to play ensuring that these issues receive due attention and are not neglected or treated as an afterthought. Authors who adhere to these ethical guidelines will increase the trust and credibility of nursing publications by professionals and public, and contribute to enhancing overall confidence in the integrity of clinical nursing research.