If you blow a whistle, know the tune

If you blow a whistle, know the tune W ith more researchers publishing more information than ever before, and with the emergence of more screening tools to help uncover ethical violations, readers of Learned Publishing will not be surprised that academic publishers are receiving an everincreasing number of allegations of ethical breaches, the consideration of which demands inordinate amounts of time. Because one of a publisher’s major roles is to maintain the integrity of the scholarly literature, I see it as our responsibility to address all allegations that have suffi cient merit, whether from an anonymous or a named claimant. We thus need to fi nd a more effi cient way to manage this surge. Otherwise, careless consideration of these allegations by the journals could negatively impact careers and reputations, be risky both to the journals and their owners, and lead to delay in or avoidance of reporting necessary corrections to the literature. Evaluating allegations requires substantial human and fi nancial resources. Just focusing on the details provided in the allegation, we dig deep with our own internal analyses. Journals staff coordinate activities, gather documents, verify claims, generate correspondence, and track each action taken. Expert input is obtained from editors and scientists – whether volunteer or paid. Only thereafter do we determine if it is time to contact the author, institution, or others, to pursue the allegation further. Among the many types of allegations, those of plagiarism, duplicate publication/self-plagiarism, and image manipulation – all easier to identify now because agencies, institutions, and individuals use software to detect them – have increased the most. More of these, however, especially from some of the anonymous claimants, seem to lack details and relevant supporting information needed to access the problem, and contain only a few sentences with little accompanying documentation. Issues raised about plagiarism are often based only upon comparison of abstracts rather than of full articles to identify the extent of exact duplication, and lack the necessary analysis to determine if the articles are based on the same data. Image manipulation allegations are sometimes limited only to citations of two or more articles with references only to fi gure numbers, leaving the journals do the legwork of fi nding the articles and examining and evaluating the images. A more complex issue arises when allegations that use today’s scientifi c and publishing standards are applied to articles published more than a decade ago. Journals pursue these with varying vigor, depending on the apparent seriousness of the breach. Actual examples from my own experience include selfplagiarism by inclusion of some paragraphs from a meeting report published nearly a decade ago in a review article a year later without citation, and an article published in the early 1990s in which photographs of gels were clearly spliced together to remove unwanted lanes, even though the image was not necessary to support the research conclusions. While these examples may not now be seen as ‘best practices’, they were not uncommon in their time. My preference in such cases is to bring these assertions to the authors’ attention for their consideration. Properly constructed allegations of ethical violations can and do contribute to publishers’ goals of maintaining and strengthening the integrity of the scholarly literature. To ensure the effi ciency and effectiveness of the process, publishers should consider helping those submitting allegations by making clear what information is required and useful to the journal in pursuing them. At the very least, an allegation should outline the standards that have been breached, provide as many specifi cs as possible, and supply copies of articles highlighting the duplicated content. At the same time, a claimant serious about bringing allegations forward and who has the expertise to identify problems has a responsibility to take the time to make the case based on solid evidence and arguments. In this collaborative manner, scholarly publishers can then ask better questions of those accountable, and encourage everyone along the way to take responsibility for their part in the research process and its communication. Let’s also call together organizations interested in promoting good publishing practices, such as the Council of Science Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and the World Association of Medical Editors, to establish guidelines of evidence for various types of allegations. The scholarly literature will thereby be strengthened.