Santosh Kumar Yadav

Research and
Publication Ethics
Research and Publication Ethics
Santosh Kumar Yadav

Research and Publication

Ethics

Ane Books Pvt. Ltd.

New Delhi Chennai
Santosh Kumar Yadav
Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India

ISBN 978-3-031-26970-7 ISBN 978-3-031-26971-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4

Jointly published with Ane Books Pvt. Ltd.

In addition to this printed edition, there is a local printed edition of this work available via Ane Books in South
Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan) and Africa (all countries in the African
subcontinent).
ISBN of the Co-Publisher’s edition: 978-938921-268-6

0th edition: # author 2020

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
2020, 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the
whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage
and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws
and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give
a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that
may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

In the month of December 2019, University Grants Commission (UGC) circulated a letter
to the Vice Chancellors of all Indian Universities [D.O.No.F.1-1/2018 (Journal/CARE)],
referring its 543rd meeting which approved two credit courses for awareness about
publication ethics and publication misconduct entitled “Research and Publication Ethics”
to be made compulsory for all Ph.D. students for pre-registration coursework. The entire
course has 6 units focusing on philosophy of science and ethics, research integrity, and
publication ethics. Hands-on-sessions are designed to identify research misconduct and
predatory publications. Indexing and citation databases, open access publications, research
metrics (citations, h-index, Impact Factor, etc.), and plagiarism tools to be introduced in
this particular course. The present book meets with all contents suggested by University
Grants Commission in its letter and blueprint.
The significant contribution of research deals with the progress of the nation as well as
an individual with commercial, social, and educational advantages. The major objectives of
research are to find out a hidden and undiscovered truth of the nature. As a long and
continual process, the driving factor of research is motivation and passion. For
organizations including defense and research laboratories, research is an important aspect
for the nation and sustainability. To the philosophers and thinkers, research means the
outlet for new ideas and insights. Research is a random walk, but the scholars need to
systematically continue toward the destination. It is quite easy to see or to represent action
research as something standing in contrast with, or, more strongly, in opposition to, more
theoretical or philosophical approaches to classroom practice. As a form of practice, action
research can appear to have a disarming philosophical innocence. The philosophical
attitude can critically reacquaint policymakers with the resources of their own ethical
tradition and in doing so enable them to test proposed prescriptions against those traditions.
Ethical codes appear to be designed to protect the weak and the vulnerable from exploita-
tion or harm, which is entirely proper. Educational research is not focused exclusively on
community’s defined or self-defined as disempowered, communities which lack either
legal or psychological ownership of research or the research process. Most of the
philosophers have examined abstract concepts, while sociologists and psychologists have

v
vi Preface

focused on extreme cases and research scandals in the course of locating ethical issues in
their research experience. Ethics and morality have similarly been developed from terms
that pertain to customary or usual practice in research. The conception of science as a
value-free enterprise has been seriously challenged and important questions have been
raised about the appropriate relationship between scientific inquiry, objectivity, and the role
of scientist’s values and beliefs.
Science is considered as an amorphous, distributed, and dynamic institution, composed
of many other institutions and falling under the control of no central body. Body of
knowledge that science develops becomes a part of our common heritage. Practicing the
professions, investigating nature and society, depends upon a trust placed by the general
public in scientists who will pursue the truth dispassionately and with an eye toward the
general good.
Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A
person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. For
the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty
and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of practices that characterize
responsible research conduct. Scientific misconduct and fraud are prevailing problems in
science and it threatens to undermine integrity, credibility, and objectivity in genuine
research. It also risks undermining trust, among researchers and the general public. It
becomes important to consider the possible means of countering fraud and misconduct in
the research. By criminalization we meant the decision of making some action like a
criminal offense for which one may merit criminal punishment, such as fines, community
service, or even incarceration. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that
seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted practices within the scientific
community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest
error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
In a nutshell, I have tried the best to provide ample information regarding research and
publication ethics through various sources, organizations, and research councils. I can hope
that the present book will be highly useful and informative to all researchers in home and
abroad as a text cum help reference. Reviews and suggestions are cordially invited for the
betterment of the book.

Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India Santosh Kumar Yadav

Acknowledgments

A number of intellectuals, including my fellow professors and researchers have played a

major role in substantially improving the quality of the manuscript through its develop-
ment. I am truly grateful to each one of them for their unfailing encouragement, coopera-
tion, and moral support. To begin with, I am sincerely indebted to the following for their
unblemished enthusiasm and constructive suggestions in higher education and research:
Prof. Sunder Lal (Former V.C., V.B.S. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur), Prof. Dinesh
Singh (Former V.C., University of Delhi), Prof. C.P.S. Yadav (Former V.C., Bikaner
Agriculture University and D.G., Uttar Pradesh), Prof. Yogesh K. Tyagi (V.C., University
of Delhi), Prof. Girishwar Mishra (Former V.C., MGAHVV, Wardha),
Prof. P. Kaniappan (Former V.C., Alagappa University), Prof. Sushma Yadav (V.C.,
BPSMU, Khanpur, Haryana), Prof. K.K. Aggarwal (Former V.C., GGSIPU, Delhi and
Chairman NBA), Prof. P.B. Sharma (V.C., Amity University, Gurugram), Prof.
R.B. Mishra (Former V.C., RML Avadh University, Ayodhya), Prof. A. K. Gwal
(V.C., AISECT University, MP), Prof. A.K. Singh (V.C., Sri Sri University, Odisha),
Dr. Jagannath Patnaik (V.C., ICFAI University, Sikkim), Prof. Rana Krishna Pal
Singh (V.C., DSMNR University, Lucknow), Dr. Mohd. Aslam Parvez (MANUU,
Hyderabad), Dr. Vinod D Tibrewala (Chairman, J.J.T. University, Rajasthan), Prof.
Achyuta Samanta (Founder KIIT & KISS, Bhubaneswar), Mr. Vijay Pal Yadav (Chair-
man, Shridhar University, Rajasthan), Er. Anil Singh (Chairman, Bhagwant University,
Rajasthan), Dr. Ashok Chitkara (Chairman, Chitkara University), Mr. Ashok Gadiya
(Chairman, Mewar University), Mr. Varun Yadav (SKD University, Rajasthan), Er.
B.S. Yadav (IEC University), Prof. Amita Dev (V.C., IGDTUW, Delhi), Prof. Anu
S. Lather (V.C., Ambedkar University, Delhi), Prof. Tarun Dass, Dr. Mamta Sharma,
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Prof. Umesh Rai, Prof. Sudhish Pachauri, Prof. Devesh
Sinha, Prof. J. P. Khurana, Prof. Neeta Sehgal, Prof. M. L. Singla, Dr. B. S. Yadav,
Prof. M. M. Chaturvedi, Prof. Ramesh Chandra, Dr. Satish Verma, Dr. Raj Kumar,
Dr. Anju Gupta, Dr. Rama Sharma, Dr. Vibha Singh Chauhan, Dr. Meena Singh,
Dr. C. P. Mishra, Dr. H. V. Jhamb, Prof. R. K. Vyas, Prof. Geeta Singh, Dr. Kaushal
Pawar, Dr. Yuvraj Kumar, Dr. Manish Kumar Vats, Dr. D. P. Sharma, Dr. Neelam Rathi

vii
viii Acknowledgments

(all from University of Delhi), Dr. Kamal Pathak (Delhi Tech. University), Prof. Prerna
Gaur, Prof. Raj Senani (NSUT, Delhi), Dr. M.K. Gupta, Prof. S.C. Aggarwal, Dr. Jaimala
Bishnoi (C.C.S. University, Meerut), Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, Dr. Sanjay Chaudhary,
Dr. K. K. Goel, Dr. Kuldeep Bhardwaj, Dr. M. P. Singh (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
University, Agra), Prof. M.N. Hoda (Bharti Vidyapeeth, ICAM, New Delhi), Dr.
Devendra Tayal (IGDTUW, Delhi), Dr. Gurpreet Singh Tuteja (SGT University,
Haryana), Dr. Omar Farooq, Prof. M.U. Bokhari (AMU, Aligarh), Prof.
S.M.K. Quadri, Dr. S.A.M. Rizvi (Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi), Prof. A.K. Nayak
(IIBM, Patna), Prof. Afshar Alam (Jamia Hamdard, Delhi), Dr. Dharmender Kumar,
Dr. D. N. Mishra (G.J.U.S.T, Hisar), Prof. A. K. Saini, Dr. Vijay Kumar, Dr. Rashmi
Bhardwaj, Dr. A. P. Singh (GGSIPU, New Delhi), Prof. R.S. Chillar (M.D. University,
Rohtak), Dr. K. Perumal (MKU, Madurai), Dr. Poonam Kumar Sharma (DAV College,
Jalandhar), Dr. Romesh Kumar, Prof. B. S. Komal, Dr. Vibhakar Mansotra, Dr.
Pawanesh Abrol (University of Jammu), Prof. B.D. Sharma, Prof. Vipin Tyagi
(J.P. University), Dr. Vijay Singh Rathore (SKSMT, Jaipur), Dr. Naveen R. Seth
(Saurashtra University), Prof. P.K. Kaithal (HSGU, Sagar), Dr. Deepak Garg (Bennett
University), Dr. V. Shekhar (Osmania University, Hyderabad), Prof. A. Goverdhan
(JNTU, Hyderabad), Dr. H. S. Saini (GNI, Hyderabad), Prof. Sumant Katyal, Dr.
Durgesh Kumar Mishra (DAVV, Indore), Prof. Y. P. Kumar (Graphic Era University),
Dr. Kunasekharan (Periyar University), Prof. M. Sunderasan (Bharathiar University),
Prof. R.R. Deshmukh (Dr. B. S. Ambedkar Marathwara University), Prof. Shivaji
Namdeo Deore (North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon) Prof. Subhash Chandra
Yadav (Central University, Jharkhand), Dr. R. Srinivasan (MSRIT, Bangalore), Prof.
H.R. Vishwakarma (VIT University, Vellore), Dr. R. Sridharam (Marwadi University,
Gujrat), Prof. U.K. Singh (GOU, Nagaland), Dr. P. K. Sinha (Dr. S. P. M. I. I. I. T.,
Raipur), Dr. V. S. P. Shrivastava (IGNOU), Dr. Cheki Dorji, Prof. Lhato Jamba,
Phanchung, Prof. Lhuendup Dorji (Royal University of Bhutan), Dr. R.N. Pandey
(Tribhuban University, Nepal), Prof. Yagyanath Rimal (Pokhara University, Nepal),
Prof. Avireni Srinivasula (JECRC University), Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi Mohanty (Sri Sri
University), Prof. P. K. Bhatnagar (S.V. Subharti University), Dr. Rajdeep Singh Rawat
(NIE, Singapore), Dr. Pratap Kumar Pati (GNDU, Amritsar), Dr. Gajanan M. Sabnis
(Howard University, USA), Dr. Puneet Mishra (University of Lucknow), Dr. Pratibha
Singh (NAAC), Prof. M. S. Prasad Babu (Andhra University), Prof. Aman Sharma
(H.P. University, Shimla), Dr. Rajeev Sharma (DST), Dr. Sanjay Yadav (ITS, Noida),
Dr. V. K. Jain (Mody University, Rajasthan), Dr. Vikas Nath (BVIMR, New Delhi), Dr.
Prakash H. Patil (D. Y. Patil COE, Pune), Prof. K.T.V. Reddy (SVIT, Nashik), Dr.
Charu Verma (CSIR-NISCAIR), and many more.
I would be failing in my duty without thanks to my publishers Mr. J. R. Kapoor and
Mr. Sunil Saxena of Ane Books Pvt. Ltd. including entire team for providing me liberty to
express my views and experience in higher education and research with ample time. I am
grateful to my wife Seema, kids, Ayan and Akshita for errorless proof readings and
emotional support.
Acknowledgments ix

Last but not least, I am thankful to my gentle readers who have always encouraged me
with appreciations for my work. I must accept responsibility, for any errors that might still
remain. I would certainly appreciate receiving comments and suggestions about entire
material to improve in the next edition of the book.
Dr. Santosh Kumar Yadav
[email protected]
Contents

1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Phases of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Features of Good Research Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Educational Research and Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Concept of Educational Philosophy and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A Philosopher in the Classroom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Philosopher in an Interdisciplinary Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Pragmatic Perspectives of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Ethical Codes and Academic Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2 Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Being Ethical and Moral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Nature of Moral Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Nature of Ethical Reactions: Applied Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Research Ethics and Positionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Epistemology, Ethics, and Educational Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Validity-Versus-Reliability Tradeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Commodification of Educational Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Publishing and Coaching in Intercultural Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Ethics and Feminist Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

xi
xii Contents

3 Ethics in Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Issues of Authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Peer Review’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Research Ethics in Human/Animal Subjects (Care) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Issues of Intellectual Property and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Conflicts of Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Beneficence/Non-maleficence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Vulnerability and Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Research Ethics Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Science and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Environment and Bases of Research Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Promoting Integrity in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Evaluation by Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Integrity of the Individual Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Support of Integrity by the Research Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Research Environment and Its Impact on Research Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Fostering Integrity in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Promoting Honesty in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Principles of Adult Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5 Scientific Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Poor Practices vs. Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Fabrication/Falsification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Stealing Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Institutional Responses to Scientific Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Administrative Responses to Scientific Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Misconduct in Regulated Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
What is Plagiarism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Types of Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
What to Look For . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Contents xiii

6 Redundant Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Authorship Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Problems Caused by Redundant Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Acceptability and Consequences of Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
How to Prevent Redundancy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Salami Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Simultaneous Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Competing Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Misrepresentation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Publish Ethically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7 Publication Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
How to Deal with Misconduct in COPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) . . . . . . . 121
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) . . . . 121
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) . . . . . . . . . . . 125
The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Conflicts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8 Publication Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Misconduct by Editors, Publishers, and Peer-Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Types of Publication Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Human Rights, Privacy, and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Cultures and Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Registering Clinical Trials and Animals in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Appeals and Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Violation of Publication Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Concept of Spin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Predatory Publishers and Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
xiv Contents

9 Global Intellectual Property Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
The International Law and Political Economy of Intellectual Property . . . . . 149
Legal, Philosophical and Economic Justifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Patents and Trade Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Trademarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
International Human Rights and Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Information Technologies and the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Intellectual Property and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Education, Culture, and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10 Open Access Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Promoting Open Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Institutional Repositories: Content and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
The Changing Information Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Changing Information Seeking Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
The Organizational View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Content Decisions and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Conceptual Models of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Metadata Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Types of Material and their Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Gray Literature and Journal Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Preprint and Other Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Open Archival Information System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Access Tools and Services to Open Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Role of Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
The Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) . . . . . . . 198
Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
The SHERPA/RoMEO Application Programmer’s Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Elsevier Journal Finder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Springer Journal Suggester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Contents xv

11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Plagiarism: Issue and Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Referencing Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Name–Date (Harvard) Style of Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Abbreviations in References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Reference Foreign Author Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Avoiding Plagiarism as an Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Detecting Potential Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Critical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Referencing Electronic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
The Future of Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
12 Database and Research Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Bibliometrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Bibliometrics Milestones Year by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Calculating Journal Impact Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Immediacy Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Cited Half-Life, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
SCImago Journal Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Source Normalized Impact Per Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
H-Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
H5-Index and H5-Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Fuzzy Metrics: Non-citation-Based Bibliometrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
The Categories of Bibliometrics Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Web of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Journal Citation Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Scopus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Google Scholar Citations, Profiles, and Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Additional Bibliometric Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Altmetrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Research Gate (RG Scores) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Mendeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
The Leiden Manifesto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
How to Interpret Research Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Altmetrics and Open Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
xvi Contents

Indian Citation Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Philosophy of Research: An Introduction
1

Overview

The word research itself is a combination of “re” and “search,” which is meant by a
systematic investigation to gain new knowledge from already existing facts. Frankly
speaking, research may be defined as a scientific understanding of existing knowledge
and deriving new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of the mankind. In the words
of Wernher von Braun (a German philosopher), “Research is what I’m doing when I
don’t know what I’m doing.” It is basically the search for truth/facts. The significant
contribution of research deals with the progress of the nation as well as an individual with
commercial, social, and educational advantages. Albert Szent Gyorgyi (Hungarian Bio-
chemist, Nobel Prize 1937) writes “Research is to see what everybody else has seen and
think what nobody has thought.” Research may be an important parameter to judge the
development of any nation/generation. According to Clifford Woody (American philoso-
pher, 1939), “Research comprises of defining and redefining problems, formulating the
hypothesis for suggested solutions, collecting, organizing and evaluating data, making
deductions and reaching conclusion and further testing the conclusion whether they fit
into formulating the hypothesis.” The major objectives of research are to find out a hidden
and undiscovered truth of the nature/society. There are various objectives behind under-
taking research by individuals as well as various organizations/universities. Some philo-
sophical objectives behind any research include:

• To propose and test certain hypotheses to provide causal relationships between certain
variables;
• To discover and establish the existence of relationship, association, and independence
between two or more aspects of a particular situation or phenomenon;
• To understand different phenomena and develop new perceptions about it;

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_1
2 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

• To study and describe accurately the characteristics of situations, problems, phenomena,

services, groups, or individuals;
• To explain unexplored horizons of knowledge;
• To test reported findings and conclusions on new data and novel conclusions on
previously reported data;
• To study the frequency of research that is connected with unspecified objectives.

As a long and continual process, the main driving factor of research is motivation and
passion. For some researchers and postgraduate students, the main objective behind the
research remains only to earn a degree. For organizations including defense and research
laboratories, research is an important aspect for the nation and sustainability. To the
philosophers and thinkers, research means the outlet for new ideas and insights, whereas
to the intellectual people research can be the development of new styles and creative work.
Research is a random walk, but the scholars need to systematically continue toward the
destination. Failure is an inevitable step in the research phase/process, but may be a pillar of
success. Creativity, good written and verbal communication skills, and in-depth knowledge
of the subject are essential for successful completion of research work. A researcher must
have sound fundamental knowledge of the domain to be undertaken. A querying attitude is
one of the important factors. Anything and everything are questionable in a research
process. This questioning attitude of the scholar is essence of research and invention.
Practical intelligence is the ability to adopt day-to-day requirements while persistent,
tenacious, uncompromising, and stubborn are some of the characteristics of creative
people.
Important ingredients for a good researcher are:

• Dedication and commitment;

• Consistency and patience;
• Good written communication;
• Domain knowledge;
• Good verbal communication;
• Creativity.

There are different types of research which are classified into various categories
including applicability, the mode of enquiry in conducting the study and major objectives
of the study. Main research types include:

• Basic Research:
– pure or fundamental research;
– no immediate need;
– new theories can be added to the knowledge cluster;
– may solve problems but may not have practical applications;
– broader scope as compared to applied research.
1 Overview 3

• Applied Research:
– tries to solve an immediate specific problem faced by industry or society;
– obtained solution can be deployed to solve the problem;
– duration is shorter as a quick solution is expected;
– optimized search type problem (e.g., engineering domain);
– either address the unsolved problem or improve the existing solution.
• Descriptive Research:
– used in business analysis or social problems;
– does not have any control over the parameters or variables;
– just tries to represent or analyze the previous and/or current facts;
– correlational methods, survey methods, and comparative studies are used.
• Analytical Research:
– uses existing information to explain a complex phenomenon or to perform a critical
evaluation;
– identified hypothesis can be accepted or rejected depending on the analysis;
– from experience the hypothesis can be redefined;
– observed in historical study, forensic work, food, in the medical domain, etc.;
– summarizes and evaluates the ideas in historical research for accessing both witness
and literature sources to document past events;
– data can be presented to support the data in comprehensive model.
• Correlational Research:
– focuses on exploring the relationship or association between incidences, variables;
– from the collected data, researchers may come up with a number of observations and
analytics.
• Qualitative Research:
– mainly deals with the quality or the types of the parameters considered for the
research;
– differences in the parameter may occur with time;
– related to human behavior;
– more complicated and requires more guidance;
– less emphasis is given on generalization and more focus is toward individual;
– focus of the work is to find results with respect to qualitative parameters.
• Quantitative Research:
– involves measurements of quantities of characteristics that can be used as features for
the research study;
– assumes that the world is stable and uses statistical analysis on parameter values for
conclusions;
– statistical quantities that can be measured are involved.
• Experimental Research:
– focuses on the fieldwork and experiments that can control the independent variable;
– can be tested and trained with pre- and post-experimental research design.
4 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

• Explanatory Research:
– tries to analyze and justify the reason behind the occurrence of particular phenome-
non or association between the variables;
– answers the “Why” type of questions;
– aims to explain why a relationship, association, or interdependence exists;
– a causal research with three important components like time-to-time sequences which
will occur before the effect, concomitant variations, where the variations will be
systematic between two variables.
• Exploratory Research:
– explores the areas that have required meager attention;
– for checking the possibility of research in the particular domain or area;
– a small-scale study is done to decide the further scope of advancement in domain.
– depending on outcomes of study, domain is further explored for in-depth research on
the specific topic.

Phases of Research

As a known verse “Efficient and well-planned activities always see success.” Well begun
is not only half done but often fully cooked. To grab the success, researchers need to:

• efficiently plan a research activity;

• formulate a tentative research problem;
• execute it meticulously;
• publish it for outside world;
• follow research process to get optimized research outcomes.

General steps in the research process are:

• Selection of Domain/Area of Research:

– Very first step in the process of research;
– Different purposes behind undertaking particular research;
– High possibility to select the domain of the research supervisor or the guide to
suggest selection of the particular domain;
– Research domain can be selected from the area of interest, identified gap in the
literature, and individual skill set;
– Design and develop the new product, to upgrade available one, to study and analyze
the effects of the product specifications.
• Formulating a Research Problem and Identification of Keywords:
– Define tentative research problem definition and identify the related keywords for
literature;
1 Phases of Research 5

–Equip with all the tools and domain knowledge required for research;
–Requires ability to go in depth on particular topic;
–Discussion of the state-of-the-art with colleagues and domain experts;
–Prepare the research tentative plan of research work;
–Objective of research must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic,
and Time-bound).
• Literature Survey:
– Comprehensive study of technical and authorized content related to research
keywords;
– Revisited by researcher number of times during research journey;
– Provides details of research progress of particular domain;
– Helps the researcher to understand the approaches, methodologies, algorithms, and
datasets used by other scientists;
– Important to identify where the gap is;
– Helps the researcher to understand the progress of domain and state of the art in the
domain;
– Helps to avoid duplication of work;
– Can be done with respect to:
What (process to be followed);
How (process schematic/standard procedure);
Discussion on major steps involved;
Design criteria and performance measures;
Techniques currently in use;
Comparative analysis (table/any suitable tool to discover and list pros and cons/
strength/weakness/future scope of existing techniques);
Scope for research/gap in research.

• Redefining Research Problem, Objectives, and Outcomes:

– Problem definitions should be unambiguous, clear statement that states the major
objective of the research;
– There should be four to six subobjectives defined for research work;
– There should be a clear indication of the research work which should not be the
recurrence of the same research;
– There should also be an outcome which has been initialized while mentioning the
research objective;
– Objective should be given pointwise (four to six points);
– After domain selection and identifying the problem definition, researchers should
formulate a hypothesis.
• Research Proposal:
– Should be able to convince people for selected topic and objectives;
– To be reviewed by different expert committees;
6 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

– Mandatory document submitted to the university or research organization during the

registration for a PhD degree as a layout plan of further research;
– Generally, includes the following sections:
Introduction (250–300 words)/Proposed Topic of Research;
Literature Review of Research Topic (1500–2000 words);
Gap in Existing Research;
Objective of the Proposed Research;
Outcome;
Methodology.

• Identifying Variable/Parameters and Research Design:

– Basic quality or attribute to differ in values under different circumstances;
– To identify all related variables or parameters;
– To define the domain and range of each variable;
– To decide on the design strategy of research;
– To shift the paradigm from “what is my research?” to “how am I going to
conduct it?”;
– Systematic plan designed to obtain a solution to the research problem;
– Blueprint of the entire research.
• Data Collection and Representation:
– Data can be either directly collected afresh (primary data) or already collected and
used data (secondary data);
– Depends on problem definition and research objectives;
– Can be represented in simple text, tables, graphs, audio, video, or images.
– The reliability can be tested by finding out the following:
Who collected the data?
What were the sources of the data?
Were they collected by using proper methods?
At what time were they selected?
What level of accuracy was desired?
Was accuracy achieved?
– Tabulation can conserve space and reduce explanatory and descriptive statement to
provide the comparison from one state to another with importance:
Each table will give a clear title that does not require an explanation;
Each table will be provided with a separate number that will be easy for referring;
Graphical representation helps to understand the data easily.

• Testing of Proposed Design on Collected Data/Hypothesis Testing:

– To prove or disprove the research, hypothesis testing, expressed as either a null
hypothesis or alternative hypothesis;
– The procedure for hypothesis testing is undertaken for making a choice between the
rejection and acceptance of a null hypothesis observing the following steps:
1 Phases of Research 7

Setting up of hypothesis consists of the data that makes the statement of a null
hypothesis, which should clearly state the nature of the research problem;
Particular expression of the hypothesis is an important aspect while considering a
goal or purpose of the considered problem;
Hypothesis can be validated when the values are decided in advance for the
significance of the work when they are directional and nondirectional;
Test statistics will be conducting hypothesis test for means and variance. The
formula for test statistics and their distributions are discussed depending on the
value of test statistics using observations selected by the researcher and the
parametrical value stated under null hypothesis;
Using different types of critical value for test statistic, level of significance, and
the type of test we obtain a critical value;
The null hypothesis is rejected or accepted by comparing the distribution of test
statistics.
– Some of the important limitations of hypothesis testing are:
Results cannot be expressed with full certainty (probabilistic);
Testing is not a decision-making activity in itself, the researcher should not use it
in a mechanical way;
Tests don’t explain the reason why the dissimilar result has been obtained due to
fluctuation;
Significance of the results is been validated on the basis of the probabilistic
conditions which cannot be explained fully;
Inference the statistical data cannot provide the evidence for the truth of the
hypothesis.
– There exist a number of statistical tools like t-test, F-test, chi-square test, D-W test,
etc. to test the validity of the hypothesis.
• Results and Analysis:
– The most important and appealing section of the conducted research;
– The hypothesis should be tested with multiple approaches and that results can be
compared;
– Should be represented in the visual format using tables, figures, and/or graphs;
– May include the problems faced during collection of data and complete analysis of
results.
• Research Report Writing:
– The research report is a medium to convey research outcomes, contributions,
findings, and results to the outside world to decide the quality of research work
done by the researcher;
– Patents, copyrights, and white papers are also possible outcomes of the research;
– A research report may include the following sections:
Abstract;
Introduction;
Review of Literature;
8 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

Problem Definition and Objectives;

Research Methodology;
Observations and Results;
Discussion;
Summary;
Conclusion and Future Trends;
Publications;
Bibliography/References;
Appendices.

Note Researchers must be aware of plagiarism issues, copyright issues, procedures,

and penalties. Plagiarism is literally stealing the work of another person, presenting it as
original research without proper citation and it comes under professional misconduct.
There are different agencies including Turnitin, Urkund, PlagScan, etc. to verify the
copied content in written document with its source. After completion of writing, a
plagiarism check of the written document by an authorized agency must be
recommended.

Features of Good Research Study

Research inculcates scientific, curious, and inductive thinking of any objective. Being an
important component of the development of nation and individual, research has special
significance in deciding government policies in economics, in solving various operational
and planning problems of business and industry, and in seeking answers to various social
problems. Research opens different avenues in particular domain for the betterment of
mankind and world. Research activity develops critical thinking about the problem,
systematic examination, developing and testing new theories, and draw important mean-
ingful conclusions. At glance during research process researcher should monitor the
following stage-wise details:

• First stage:
– Where do you start?
– Area of interest should be decided;
– Check out why this area is of interest;
– Discuss your idea with local R&D staff.
• Second stage:
– From the existing source systematic reviews should be considered carefully before
starting the research;
– Duplication of research which is not of sufficient quality is itself unethical.
• Third Stage:
– Research domain should be determined;
1 Educational Research and Philosophy 9

– Data should be arranged for a specific purpose and statistically analyzed;

– Determine top-down or bottom-up approach or combination;
– Data should be compared and validated on the work done;
– Data should provide the information and action performed for comparison of the
work;
– Results should deal with a means of solving the problem;
– Research validation should be verified with surveys;
– Perform research validation using research methods (interviews, surveys, etc.);
– Appropriateness of the work should be justified;
– Cost should be specified;
– Test practicality.

A good research clearly defines the methodologies used, should be replicable, should be
time-bound and realistic. Good research should have systematically chosen methodologies
and datasets to prove the proposed hypothesis. Validity and reliability of data should be
checked and researchers should consider an adequate amount of data. Common features of
good research are:

• Research purpose should be clearly defined;

• Procedure for the research should be detailed sufficiently which should help the other to
continue the work by referencing our work;
• Research work should be carefully planned to get the results related to the specified
objectives;
• Reports should be created by a researcher stating that what was the procedure adopted
for completing the work which should also include errors in their findings;
• Conclusions should be confident to those justified by the data of research.
• The entire research work should either form foundation for further advancement in the
domain to draw some concrete conclusions;
• It should be beneficial from the social, commercial, or educational point of view.
• Good research is always systematic and logical;
• The report should be well written and it should be published through refereed journal.

Educational Research and Philosophy

Educational research more often has become the focus for mass academic attention
throughout the world. More than 1.5 million conferences/workshops/research seminars
on various themes are being organized by universities/HEIs in a calendar year as per record
of American Educational Research Association, European Education Research Associa-
tion, Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Comparative and International
Education Society and Conference Alert forum. Since methodology is viewed as the theory
of organization of an activity, we should start with the basic notions connected with an
10 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

activity. An activity is an active interaction of a human being with an external environment,

where the former acts as a subject exerting a purposeful impact on an object to satisfy
his/her own needs. In philosophy, a subject is defined as a bearer of the object-oriented
practical activity and cognition (an individual or a social group); as the source of active
behavior directed toward an object. According to dialectics, a subject is remarkable for
inherent self-consciousness, indeed, he/she has mastered the world of culture created by the
humanity as the tools of the domain practical activity, the forms of a language, logical
categories, the norms of aesthetical or moral judgments, etc. The ac tive behavior of a
subject forms a condition ensuring that a certain fragment of objective reality acts as an
object given to the subject in the forms of his/her activity. Philosophy determines an object
as the entity opposing a subject in his/her object-oriented practical activity and cognition
activity. An object appears nonidentical with the objective reality, merely acting as its part
which interacts with a subject. Philosophy studies an activity as the comprehensive way of
a human life; accordingly, a human being is defined as an active being. The human activity
covers material-practical and intelligent (spiritual) operations, external and internal pro-
cesses. The human activity lies equally in thinking and working, in cognition process and
human behavior. Through activity a human being reveals his/her own (special) role in the
world, asserting oneself as a social being. Needs are defined as the requirement or lack of a
certain entity being essential to sustain vital activity of an organism, an individual, a social
group or society as a whole. Biological needs are subject to metabolic conversion as a
prerequisite for the existence of any living organism. The needs of social subjects, i.e., an
individual, a social group and society as a whole, depend on the development level of a
given society and on specific social conditions of their activity. The needs are stated in
concrete terms via motives that make a man or a social group act; in fact, activity is
performed for the sake of motives. Motivation means the process of stimulating an
individual or a social group to fulfill a specific activity, actions, and steps. Motives cause
formation of a goal as a subjective image of the desired result of the expected activity or
action.
The goal-implementation process is characterized by its content, forms, as well as by
specific methods, means, and technologies. A particular position within the activity
structure is occupied by those components referred to as either self-regulation or control.
Self-regulation is defined as reasonable functioning of living systems. Psychical self-
regulation is the regulation level for active behavior of such systems to express the specifics
of psychical means of reality reflection and modeling. Control is treated as an element, a
function of organized systems of different nature (e.g., biological, social, or technical
ones), ensuring retention of their structure, maintenance of activity, and implementation
of a program or a goal of activity. The notion of an external environment turns out to be an
essential category in system analysis. Conditions of activity (material and technical,
financial, informational, etc.) are related to the external environment. The following groups
of conditions are invariant for any activity in educational research:
1 Educational Research and Philosophy 11

• Motivational;
• Personnel-related;
• Material and technical;
• Methodical;
• Financial;
• Organizational;
• Regulatory and legal;
• Informational.

In general principle, human activity can be performed spontaneously, learning by one’s

own mistakes. Methodology generalizes rational forms of activity organization that have
been verified in rich social and historical practice. During different epochs of civilization
development, various basic types of organizational forms of activity have been popular. In
modern scientific literature, they are often referred to as organizational culture. A technol-
ogy is a system of conditions, forms, methods, and means to solve a posed problem.
Methodology rests upon scientific knowledge. A researcher involved in scientific activity
must have a clear and conscious conception of science, its organization, the laws of science
development, and the structure of scientific knowledge. A researcher must conceive the
criteria of scientific knowledge, as well as the forms of scientific knowledge to-be-used for
expressing the results of investigations.
The field of science studying science itself is called the science of science to include
several disciplines such as epistemology, the logic of science, semiotics (the theory of
signs), the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creation, and others. Episte-
mology is the theory of scientific cognition, a branch of philosophy. Epistemology studies
the laws and capabilities of cognition, as well as analyzes the stages, forms, methods, and
means of cognition process, the conditions and criteria of scientific knowledge validity.
Scientific cognition is considered as a sociohistorical process and represents the subject of
epistemology. The philosophical scientific knowledge may be classified as under:

• According to the groups of problem domains, knowledge is classified as mathematical,

physical, humanity-type, and technical knowledge;
• According to the way of reflecting its essence, knowledge is classified as phenomeno-
logical (descriptive) and essentialist (explanatory) knowledge. Phenomenological
knowledge represents qualitative theories with par excellence descriptive functions
(many branches of biology, geography, psychology, pedagogics, and so on). Contrari-
wise, essentialist knowledge makes up explanatory theories with application of quanti-
tative analysis tools;
• According to the activity of certain subjects, knowledge is classified as descriptive and
prescriptive, normative knowledge; the latter contains regulations, direct instructions for
an activity. We underline that the material regarding the science of science (epistemol-
ogy) presented in this subsection has a descriptive character. Nevertheless, first, this
material is necessary as a guideline for any investigator. Second, it provides a certain
12 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

base for further exposition of prescriptive, normative material related to the methodol-
ogy of scientific activity;
• According to functional purposes, scientific knowledge is classified as fundamental,
applied, and development knowledge.

Empirical knowledge is the established scientific facts, as well as the empirical laws
formulated on their basis. Theoretical knowledge is the general laws stated for a given
problem domain, enabling to explain the facts and empirical laws established earlier, as
well as to predict and foreknow future events and facts.
Some philosophical definitions are as under:

• A thesis is a scientific assertion, a formulated idea.

• Particular cases of a thesis are axiom and theorem.
• An axiom is an initial thesis of a scientific theory taken to be valid without a logical
proof and used to prove other theses of the theory.
• The issue regarding validity of an axiom is solved either within the framework of
another theory or by means of interpretation, i.e., a meaningful explanation of this
theory.
• A theorem is also a thesis whose validity is established through a logical proof.
• Auxiliary theorems serve to prove a basic one is called lemmas or statements;
• A concept is an idea reflecting objects, phenomena and their interconnections by fixing
general and specific attributes, the properties of objects and phenomena;
• A category is an extremely wide concept reflecting the most general and essential
properties, attributes, interconnections, and relations of objects and phenomena of the
surrounding world (e.g., matter, motion, space, time, etc.);
• A principle is a concept playing a dual role and acts as a central concept representing the
generalization and extension of a thesis to all phenomena and processes in a domain
used to abstract this principle;
• A law is an essential, objective, general, stable, and repetitive relation between phe-
nomena and processes;
• A metatheory is a theory which analyzes structures, methods, properties, and ways of
constructing scientific theories in a certain field of scientific knowledge.
• An idea is the supreme form of cognizing the world, not just reflecting the object
considered, but being directed to its transformation;
• A doctrine is almost a synonym of a concept, a theory;
• A paradigm also acts as a concept, a theory, or a model of a problem statement accepted
as standard solution of research problems.
• Semiotics is the science studying the laws of designing and functioning of systems of
signs.
1 Concept of Educational Philosophy and Theory 13

Concept of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Wilfred Carr (Chair, Philosophy and Education Society of Great Britain, 1993–1996)
observed succinctly in a paper presented at a British Educational Research Association
(BERA) conference roundtable in September 1995:

Research . . . always conveys a commitment to philosophical beliefs even if this is unintended

and even though it remains implicit and unacknowledged . . . [Researchers] cannot evade the
responsibility for critically examining and justifying the philosophical ideas that their enquiries
incorporate. It follows that philosophical reflection and argumentation are central features of
the methods and procedures of educational research.

Many researchers who might not necessarily identify themselves as philosophers are
perfectly alert to these methodological issues and their philosophical underpinnings.
There are two or three alternative moves for philosophers, which are interesting not just
as defensive political moves in a particular academic economy, but for what they reveal
about the characteristics of different kinds of philosophical activity to:

• accept that the term “research” is appropriately attached to the scientific or (in the case of
social sciences quasi-scientific) paradigm indicated to find a different descriptor for the
activities of philosophers;
• advance more inclusive but restrictive definition of research which can include the
evidentially based work characteristic of historical and literary scholarship and biogra-
phy and a good deal of philosophical writing rooted in the history of ideas;
• advance an even wider definition of research to encompass at least some philosophizing
terms. A systematic and sustained inquiry to be made public is also called research.

The actual products of philosophical work provide a very mixed picture of the extent to
which the producer was engaged in an inquiry of the fact. Most commonly researchers take
the form either of a critical attack on a previous writer, or an attempt to advance and defend
a point of view held by the author, or some combination of the two. The author might place
the question or point of curiosity in the center, but this is by no means a requirement or
expectation of philosophical writing, which in some of its more declamatory forms can
come across as the product not of a humble inquirer after truth but of a somewhat arrogant
holder of the truth, a knower rather than a seeker after knowledge. Conceptual or linguistic
analysis may have a role as a helpful preliminary or accompaniment to other forms of
theoretically informed or ideologically laden enquiry into educational thought and practice,
but it cannot be separated from such theory or such ideology since the analysis rests itself
on the same framework of beliefs. Philosophers of education are faced with something of a
dilemma, which different scholars resolve in different ways. The dilemma is created by a
simultaneous demand to produce work which is a visible contribution to contemporary
14 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

educational debate (and perhaps one that non-philosophers will find accessible) and to
produce work of serious philosophical scholarship.

A Philosopher in the Classroom?

It is quite easy to see or to represent action research as something standing in contrast with,
or, more strongly, in opposition to, more theoretical or philosophical approaches to
classroom practice. This might create a serious error because of action research which
depends on philosophical aspects for its own rationale and properly conceived also to
require its practitioners to effect the entire philosophies. This all creates some consequences
in action research. There may be two distinctions in terms of research as:

• Philosophy of Research (refers to the ideas, rooted in epistemology, ethics, and social
philosophy, which might underlie the idea and practice of action research, but of which
action researchers themselves do not necessarily have to be aware).
• Philosophy in research (refers to the ways in which, arguably at least, action
researchers need to engage more self-consciously with philosophical questions).

According to John Elliott (British Historian, 1991):

A philosopher who played a central role in the development of action research and someone
who always regarded the two fields of educational inquiry as mutually dependent. Philosophi-
cal reflection . . . itself modifies conceptions of ends in ways which change one’s understanding
of what constitutes good data about practice. So, one cannot improve the methodology of
action research independently of philosophical reflection.

As a form of practice, action research can appear to have a disarming philosophical

innocence. A teacher initiates a new approach to her handling of some disruptive pupils,
monitors the effects, and revises her approach in the light of what he/she observes. Certain
features of modest initiatives that carry wider significance in research are to be observed:

• how the practitioners are developing their understanding of their professional practice
not by reference to any externally generated theory or generalized principles. With
reference to their experience tested in their own environment, there are some epistemo-
logical principles at the work order section;
• that the practitioners are themselves taking responsibility for developing their practice,
rather than being directed in the development by some outside agency, so there are some
principles to do with power and agency involved under some social/political principles;
• that the inquiry, the research, is being conducted by an insider researcher in the context
of his/her own working environment, so there are some ethical principles invoked both
1 A Philosopher in the Classroom? 15

in the preference for the insider researcher over the outsider researcher and in the
obligations to be right at stake in the relationship between researcher and researched.

There is no escaping the fact that educational action research has represented a distinc-
tive view of the nature and development of professional knowledge. It may be a view to
stand in some contrast to the idea of educational theory as applied social science, as a body
of ideas which can be developed and gain validation independently of practice and can be
handed down. MacLure (1995) suggests that it is a distinctive feature of action research
that it appears to privilege experience over theory and ascribe a special epistemological
status to experience “with connotations of authenticity, directness, naturalness, immediacy,
relevance,” “life-as-it-is-lived,” and counterpoises this against the “remoteness and
abstraction of research/theory/policy/positivism.”
For John Dewey (American Philosopher and Psychologist, 1916) there is a physical
relationship between learning and experience:

When we experience something, we act upon it, we do something with it; then we suffer or
undergo the consequence. We do something to the thing and then it does something to us in
return . . . The connection of these two phases of experience measure the fruitfulness or value
of the experience . . . When an activity is continued into the undergoing of consequences, when
the change made by the action is reflected back into a change made in us, the mere flux is
loaded with significance.

A particular teaching approach “works” in maintaining order in the classroom, but what is
its impact on the scholar’s learning, on their attitudes toward the subject, on their moral,
social, and political education? The notion of something “working” itself requires
interrogation and reflection of a kind which requires a wider conceptual apparatus than is
necessarily provided by immediate experience. The rationale for involving teachers as
researchers of their own practice is connected to an aspiration to give them control over
what is to count as knowledge about practice. As action researchers, teachers are knowl-
edge generators rather than appliers of knowledge generated by outsiders. A shift in the
distribution of the production and validation of knowledge might itself be held to constitute
a shift in the distribution of power. To qualify for inclusion as action research, a research
project had to be:

• participatory (where the researched were the researchers);

• first person (“we do” in order to change ourselves);
• emancipatory (designed to free participants by helping them to think differently);
• socially critical (so that what normally went unquestioned was questioned);
• collaborative (research the members of an action team did together);
• committed and conducted according to ethical procedures;
• risky (in a way which would make life uncomfortable).
16 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

Carl Elliott (American Philosopher, 2000) sets out the characteristics of educational
action research in terms which repeatedly reveal the intimacy of the relationship between
action research and moral and ethical evaluation rooted in a considered philosophy of
education:

• its major purpose is to realize an educationally worthwhile process of teaching and

learning.
• what counts as educationally worthwhile activity should be defined in terms of value-
concepts like “autonomous learning,” “learning with understanding,” “critical think-
ing,” “learning through discovery or inquiry.”
• . . . an activity should be evaluated as educationally worthwhile, not by virtue of its
instrumentality for effecting certain results but by virtue of the extent to which it
embodies in itself criteria and standards which are implicit in the educational ends to
which it is directed.
• . . . enquiry into how to realize educational values in the practices of teaching and
learning cannot be separated from philosophical enquiry into what these values mean
and their implications for practice. When it is so reduced, we get a version of action
research which amounts to a form of instrumental/technical problem solving.

The educational character of any practice can only be made intelligible by reference to
an ethical disposition to proceed according to some more or less tacit understanding of
what it is to act educationally. Action research leaves a role for the educational theorist in
the university as a supplier of theoretical resources for teachers to use in reflecting about
and developing their practice, but it establishes the teacher as the ultimate arbiter over what
is to count as useful knowledge.

The Philosopher in an Interdisciplinary Research

The Higher Education Funding Council for England declares that:

Research in education is multi-disciplinary and is closely related to a range of other

disciplines with which it shares common interests, methods and approaches . . .
(HEFCE, 2012).

The philosophical attitude can critically reacquaint policymakers with the resources of their
own ethical tradition and in doing so enable them to test proposed prescriptions against
those traditions. In the field of research we refer to research teams, research groups, and
research centers. These have in common the features of:

• bringing together a number of researchers in some formation;

• around some common task or set of tasks;
• with some shared principles, values, or interests.
1 Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth 17

Moral education can only be articulated upon some understanding of what it is to be

moral, and of the knowledge and understanding which are the components of moral choice
and moral action. It might be helpful to pull out some of the issues that might provide a
focus for discussion on interdisciplinarity in research. These have included:

• questions to do with the role of “the philosopher” in an interdisciplinary or multidisci-

plinary research group and how the “philosophical” contribution is understood;
• questions to do with the problematization of that identity of “non-philosophers” who
seem to be doing philosophical work and of “philosophers” whose intellectual role and
resources cannot be reduced to the philosophical;
• questions to do with what anyone qua philosopher can make of empirical data;
• questions to do with how philosophers and those in the educational research community
who would not define themselves in these terms can engage more effectively together;
does this require us to subordinate our disciplinary identities?
• questions to do with the conditions which “make a community of arguers possible”
within a research group and, more problematically, within looser educational research
groupings/networks which cross all sorts of linguistic and cultural, as well as epistemic,
frontiers.

Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth

There is an illuminating association between some of the classical theories of truth and the
major paradigms of educational research. The application of any type of research method
and the defense of the results of inquiry thus obtained imply a view, or views, of what is to
count as knowledge. The point of preferring one set of methods over another is to believe
that the chosen set will lead to knowledge rather than mere belief, opinion, or personal
preference. We may regard our work as simply another construction. We hope the reader
will find it reasonably informed and sophisticated, but it is certainly far from universal
truth. Indeed, there is no universal truth to which our construction is a more or less good
approximation. We trust that continuing dialectic dialogue about what we have to say will
lead to reconstructions of greater power and worth but not of greater truth. The moral
imperative on the responsive constructivist evaluator is continuously to be on the alert for
challenges to the prevailing construction and to stand ready to refine, change, or even reject
that which is currently believed in favor of something else that, on examination, seems
more reasonable and appropriate to those in the best position to make that judgment.
Confirmability is concerned with assuring that data, interpretations, and outcomes of
inquiries are rooted in contexts and persons apart from the evaluator and not simply
figments of the evaluator’s imagination. What is represented in this instance is clearly a
correspondence theory of truth applied to the particular context of giving accounts of
people’s constructions of their social world. The imperative on the researcher is clearly to
18 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

penetrate all sorts of lies, deceit, and misrepresentation in order to provide as far as possible
a truthful account of people’s constructions of their world.
The non-scientific approaches under the educational research which supposingly or
seemingly rejects the quest for truth not to be rejected to shift the paradigm to other types of
research. The net consequence of “alternative” approaches to educational research may be
to relieve the researcher from some responsibility for establishing what is “truthlike” to use,
but this responsibility is then simply passed on to others.

Pragmatic Perspectives of Research

A pragmatic approach is to eschew lofty theory, ideology, rarefied scientific claims which
researched conflict with common-sense of understanding. Theory of knowledge has come
to dominate via a good deal of policy in relation to education. Philosophical pragmatists
remain a loosely associated group with overlapping and evolving concerns and points of
view, rather than a single program or set of commitments. For the pragmatists, learning and
the development of knowledge and understanding had its roots in an interest, purpose, task,
or project which an individual was engaged with or pursuing. A problem situation exists
whenever we find our established habits of conduct inadequate to attain a desired end and
the effect of a problem situation upon us is the production of doubt. The key to the
educational experience is getting the student to recognize that this cycle of interest-
doubt-problem solving is beneficial and worthy of pursuit. The repeated cycle of classroom
action research (as researcher):

• starts with teachers identifying some aspect of their practice which they find unsatisfac-
tory, puzzling, frustrating, not working as they would wish it;
• they move from a state of puzzlement or frustration to a more explicit articulation of the
problem;
• they investigate what is happening in their classrooms more carefully (in a more
systematic and sustained way?) than they are normally able to do (hence the claim to
research);
• they hypothesize in the light of this evidence some changes in their practice which will
address the problem;
• they implement the changes in practice;
• they investigate again their impact on what is happening.

The model of classroom action research is clearly rooted in pragmatic theory of

knowledge and enjoys the benefit of its persuasive and practical representation of the
relationship between theory and practice. Pragmatism is at its most convincing within the
realm of technology probably suffers from having taken the technological domain as
paradigmatic of all knowledge. Technology comes into play in very much the way that
1 Ethical Codes and Academic Independence 19

the pragmatists describe, when people want to do something or get somewhere, when they
try out a solution. If that works and allows them to do what they want, then that is enough.
When we set the problem, we select what we will treat as the “things” of the situation,
we set the boundaries of our attention to it, and we impose upon it a coherence which
allows us to say what is wrong and in what directions the situation needs to be changed.
Problem setting is a process in which, interactively, we name the things to which we will
attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them. The function of research is
not onle to address pragmatically the problems that arise out of practice and to serve the
purpose of improving the technical results individually or collectively:

• to dig out the less apparent evidence, perhaps the evidence concealed by an embarrassed
government department, which challenges our ideas about what is in fact happening;
• to challenge the ends or purposes which are guiding our practice and the values and
principles which are governing their pursuit;
• to challenge and to provide alternatives to the ideas which frame our understanding of
and interpretation of what is going on in our classrooms, schools, or educational
systems;
• to make this public.

Research is not only a resource for enabling us more effectively to achieve prescribed
ends, but also an instrument of disturbance, disruption, and dissent challenging not only the
answers to questions about our practice but also the questions which we ask. Researchers
endear themselves neither to politicians, who rarely actually welcome criticism even if they
subscribe to forms of democratic government which require them to submit to it, nor the
teachers, who probably think they have enough problems to deal with before lunchtime
without researchers or anyone else thinking up more.

Ethical Codes and Academic Independence

Ethical codes appear to be designed to protect the weak and the vulnerable from exploita-
tion or harm, which is entirely proper. Educational research is not focused exclusively on
communities defined or self-defined as “disempowered,” communities which lack either
legal or psychological “ownership” of research or the research process. The British
Education Research Association (BERA) Council had drawn to its attention a number of
research contracts which seemed to allow the commissioners of the research an inordinate
amount of control over, among other things, the research methods to be employed, the form
in which the research report will be published. The association considers that all educa-
tional research should be conducted within an ethic of respect for:
20 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

• The Person;
• The Knowledge;
• The Democratic Values;
• The Quality of Educational Research;
• Academic Freedom.

In guiding researchers on their conduct within this framework the association sets out its
guidelines under the following headings:

• Responsibilities to Participants;
• Responsibilities to Sponsors of the Research;
• Responsibilities to the Community of Educational Researchers.

Researchers must avoid agreeing to any sponsor’s conditions that could lead to serious
contravention of any aspect of these guidelines or that undermine the integrity of the research
by imposing unjustifiable conditions on the methods to be used or the reporting outcomes.
Attempts by sponsors or funding agencies to use any questionable influence should be reported
to the Association (BERA Ethical Guidelines, 2004).

Educational researchers are free to interpret and publish their findings without censorship
or approval from individuals or organizations, including sponsors, funding agencies,
participants, colleagues, supervisors, or administrators. This understanding should be
conveyed to participants as part of the responsibility to secure informed consent.
Educational researchers should not agree to conduct research that conflicts with aca-
demic freedom, nor should they agree to undue or questionable influence by government or
other funding agencies. Examples of such improper influence include endeavors to inter-
fere with the conduct of the research, the analysis of findings, or the reporting of
interpretations. Educational researchers should not accept funds from sponsoring agencies
that request multiple renderings of reports that would distort the reports or mislead readers.
The right of researchers independently to publish the findings of their research under
their own names is considered the norm for sponsored research, and this right should not be
lightly waived or unreasonably denied. This right is linked to the obligation on researchers
to ensure that their findings are placed in the public domain and within reasonable reach of
educational practitioners and policymakers, parents, pupils, and the wider public.
Researchers must avoid agreeing to any sponsor’s conditions that could lead to serious
contravention of any aspect of these guidelines or that undermine the integrity of the
research by imposing unjustifiable conditions on the methods to be used or the reporting of
outcomes. Researchers have the right to dissociate themselves publicly from accounts of
the research that they conducted, the subsequent presentation of which they consider
misleading or unduly selective. Sponsors enjoy a similar right. It is in the interests of
researchers and sponsors alike to prevent this situation arising by agreements on publica-
tion or, if necessary, through arbitration. The fact that research codes of national research
1 Review Questions 21

associations do address some of these issues of responsibility to both an informed public

and an academic community of scholars is part of an answer to concern.

Review Questions

1. Explain the term “research” in view of two philosophers.

2. Briefly describe the different steps involved in a research process.
3. Describe the different types of research, clearly pointing out the difference between an
experiment and a survey.
4. “Empirical research in India in particular creates so many problems for the
researchers.” State the problems that are usually faced by such researchers.
5. “Creative management, whether in public administration or private industry, depends
on methods of inquiry that maintain objectivity, clarity, accuracy, and consistency.”
Discuss this statement and examine the significance of research.
6. What is research problem? Define the main issues which should receive the attention of
the researcher in formulating the research problem. Give suitable examples to elucidate
your points.
7. “Knowing what data are available often serves to narrow down the problem itself as
well as the technique that might be used.” Explain the underlying idea in this statement
in the context of defining a research problem.
8. What is research design? Discuss the basis of stratification to be employed in sampling
public opinion on inflation.
9. Give your understanding of a good research design. Is single research design suitable
in all research studies? If not, why?
10. “It is never safe to take published statistics at their face value without knowing their
meaning and limitations.” Elucidate this statement by enumerating and explaining the
various points which you would consider before using any published data. Illustrate
your answer by examples wherever possible.
11. “Experimental method of research is not suitable in management field.” Discuss, what
are the problems in the introduction of this research design in business organization?
12. What are common features of good research?
13. How many ways the philosophical scientific knowledge may be classified in the
research?
14. Explain Wilfred Carr’s concept of educational philosophy and theory.
15. What is the difference between philosophy of research and philosophy in research?
16. What is the physical relationship between learning and experience?
17. What is the impact of action research on the scholar’s learning?
18. What are philosophical features of a good research study?
19. Explain the role of a philosopher in an interdisciplinary research.
22 1 Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

20. Write Short Notes on the following:

(a) Educational Research and Philosophy
(b) Philosopher in the Classroom
(c) Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth
(d) Interdisciplinary Research
(e) Pragmatic Theory of Knowledge
(f) Ethical Codes and Academic Independence

Further Reading

Bairagi V, Munot MV (2019) Research methodology. A practical and scientific approach. CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY
Brandenburg R, McDonough S (2019) Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher educa-
tion. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., Cham
Bridges D (2017) Philosophy in educational research: epistemology, ethics, politics and quality.
Springer International Publishing AG, Cham
Chawla D, Sondhi N (2015) Research methodology: concepts and cases. Vikas® Publishing House
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
Jain S (2019) Research methodology in arts, science and humanities. Society Publishing,
Oakville, ON
Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd,
New Delhi
Kumar R (2011) Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. SAGE Publications
India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
Novikov AM, Novikov DA (2013) Research methodology: from philosophy of science to research
design. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL
Pring R (2000) Philosophy of educational research. Continuum, London
Pruzan P (2016) Research methodology: the aims, practices and ethics of science. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing Switzerland, Cham
Smeyers P, Depaepe M (2018) Educational research: ethics, social justice, and funding dynamics.
Springer International Publishing AG, (part of Springer Nature), Cham
Yadav SK (2015) Elements of research writing. UDH Publishers and Distributers, New Delhi
Research Ethics
2

Overview

Ethical questions have always been the subject of interdisciplinary discussions and debates
in the philosophy of educational research. Most of the philosophers have examined abstract
concepts, while sociologists and psychologists have focused on extreme cases and research
“scandals” in the course of locating ethical issues in their research experience. In these
circumstances, we can expect philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists to involve in
the study of education to bring together their expertise to focus on ethical questions in
educational research. A brief glance at the research literature and research studies reveals
that this topic is absent from debate. The Oxford English Dictionary (1972) illustrates
ethics as:

Relating to morals, treating of moral questions; morally correct, honorable . . . Set of principles
of morals . . . Science of morals, moral principles, rules of conduct, whole field of moral
science.

A definition focuses on moral principles that Cassell and Jacobs (1987) consider may
“seem to have little relation to our daily activities as researchers, teachers, students and
practitioners” point out how the concept of “ethics” is used to reprove behavior of others.
As they argue:

We do not wish to make this seem merely a matter of isolated choices in crucial situations.
Much of our lives proceeds undramatically, and often our decisions are almost imperceptible,
so that only with hindsight are we aware that our course of action had consequences that we
had not foreseen and now regret. To improve ethical adequacy . . . we must consider not only
exceptional cases but everyday decisions, and reflect not only upon the conduct of others but
also upon our own actions.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 23

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_2
24 2 Research Ethics

Research ethics are mainly of two fields: research integrity and publication ethics. Research
misconducts can occur at both areas. In the context of anthropological study most of the
philosopher’s comments have relevance for social and educational research. Most of the
literature on ethical issues in sociology has focused on research “scandals” that have
provided an opportunity to discuss research sponsorship, secrecy and deception and
questions concerning the publication of data. The ethical issues encountered in applied
social research are subtle and complex, raising difficult moral dilemmas that, at least on a
superficial level, appear unresolvable. These dilemmas often require the researcher to strike
a delicate balance between the scientific requirements of methodology and the human
rights and values potentially threatened by the research. As such, the underlying guiding
research principle is to proceed both ethically and without threatening the validity of the
research endeavor insofar as possible. It thus is essential that investigators continually ask
how they can conduct themselves ethically and still make progress through sound and
generalizable research.
While sharing certain fundamental principles of research, social scientists may choose to
direct their scientific activity from a pure or applied orientation. The basic distinction
albeit an oversimplified one underlying this dichotomy is that pure science remains
unchallenged by practical, concrete social problems and issues while applied research is
essentially a theoretical in nature. Individuals who limit their scientific activity to purely
theoretical work unrelated in any apparent way to real-world problems are typically
referred to as basic researchers. Some critics of the basic science tradition maintain that
pure research is not value free since, in their view, it is immoral not to use the knowledge
we have from theoretical research to attempt to reduce real-life social problems. But other
critics of the supposed moral neutrality of basic science have argued the reverse point by
claiming that, in fact, there have been past abuses in applications of pure knowledge.
The primary goal of an action-oriented science is to accumulate facts and principles for
immediate application to social problems and for the betterment of the human condition.
Applied social researchers conduct their studies in the hope that they yield results that have
significant potential value in the formulation or improvement of programs intended to help
solve a wide range of social problems. Social scientists who apply their science in real-life
settings where people live and work are inevitably acting on morally relevant decisions
about what should be changed and why. Recent research developments in the area of
preventive intervention research provide a useful illustration of the nature and goals of a
typical applied social research endeavor and suggest how values are inseparable from that
endeavor. A number of ethical questions are raised by the tearoom trade study, including
whether a researcher is justified in acting contrary to the best interests of subjects in
attempts to obtain valuable knowledge, to what extent deception is justified by the
importance of an investigation, how one might go about studying illegal behavior in
scientifically valid and ethically justifiable ways, and so on.
2 Being Ethical and Moral 25

Being Ethical and Moral

Ethics and morality have similarly been developed from terms that pertain to customary or
usual practice in research. The word ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos (meaning
a person’s character, nature, or disposition). It has been defined in the Oxford English
Dictionary (1936) as relating to morals or, more specifically, “of or pertaining to the
distinction between right and wrong or good and evil, in relation to actions, volitions, or
character of responsible beings.” The synonym morality is derived from the Latin word
moralis (meaning custom, manners, or character). In essence, both ethics and morality
refer to usual or normal behavior. William Frankena (American Philosopher, 1973)
defined ethics as a branch of philosophy that deals with thinking about morality, moral
problems, and judgments of proper conduct. He emphasized that while the terms ethical
and moral both pertain to morality; they are not to be confused with morally right or
morally good. A moral judgment is one that involves a matter of right or wrong, ought or
ought not, a good action or a bad one. Whenever the question “Should I conduct this
study?” is raised in social research, a moral issue is at stake. Ethical problems are also moral
problems, even though some people choose to use these terms as if a difference existed. In
contrast to moral concerns, which question whether specific acts are consistent with
accepted notions of right or wrong, the term ethical is used to connote rules of behavior
or conformity to a code or set of principles. To illustrate these words, we might maintain
that a psychologist acted ethically in the sense of not having violated the profession’s
codified rules of proper behavior, but still feel that the behavior was immoral. Thus, the
terms ethical and moral may be used interchangeably to refer to rules of proper conduct,
although one may prefer to distinguish between them in a context where codified principles
are relevant. Because the terms ethical and moral are inevitably linked with values, they
might more accurately be described as referring to behaviors about which society holds
certain values. A dilemma is apparent in research situations in which two or more desirable
values present themselves in a seemingly mutually exclusive way, with each value
suggesting a different course of action that cannot be maximized simultaneously. When
moral problems reflect uncertainty about how to balance competing values it is proper to
speak of the situation as an ethical or moral dilemma. Multiple ethical issues can be
represented in a single social research situation. Ethical sensitivity does not, in and of
itself, guarantee that an ethical problem will be sufficiently resolved. Conflicting values
tend to give rise to ethical problems. Ethical questions can relate both to the conduct of the
research and the subject matter of the research.
An ethical problem can also be described by the fact that determinations about proper
conduct require a broad perspective in research. An ethical problem involves both personal
and professional elements. When scientists disagree over questions concerning the poten-
tial hazards of a particular procedure, effects of deception on subjects’ suspiciousness, the
effects of confidentiality procedures on survey return rates and subject participation, and so
on, the disagreements are not of conflicting personal concerns but of scientific opinion,
which changes as knowledge is gained. Professional values are largely guided and
26 2 Research Ethics

maintained by the established ethical principles and procedures of a profession. Ethical

judgments might be based on a motivating factor, such as the pride a scientist derives from
a major accomplishment, or a factor reflecting level of sophistication in terms of an
awareness of the ethical issues and professional standards of proper conduct.
Ethical problems can pertain to the ethics of science (the protection of the integrity of
data) or the ethics of research (the protection of human rights). The ethics of science deals
with normative rules that protect the integrity of data. Conversely, the ethics of research is
related to the means and social consequences of the discovery of scientific truths; an
unethical judgment can thereby undermine the rights of research participants through the
methods used, or society at large through the implications of the research findings. Ethical
problems can arise from the decision to conduct research and the decision not to conduct
the research. Ethical assessments of social research traditionally have considered the costs
and utilities of conducting a particular study, but have failed to address the costs (and
utilities) of not conducting the study. Most of the moral philosophers might agree that
avoiding harms that are immediate and certain may be more important than conferring
benefits that are uncertain and distant in time. Thus, the decision to do or not to do a study is
a complex one and poses a challenge for the researcher to select methods that preserve both
scientific validity and morality.
Ethical problems in social research may have some of the following characteristics:

• The complexity of a single research problem can give rise to multiple questions of
proper behavior;
• Sensitivity to ethical issues is necessary but not sufficient for solving them;
• Ethical problems are the results of conflicting values;
• Ethical problems can relate to both the subject matter of the research and the conduct of
the research;
• An adequate understanding of an ethical problem sometimes requires a broad perspec-
tive based on the consequences of research;
• Ethical problems involve both personal and professional elements;
• Ethical problems can pertain to science and to research;
• Judgments about proper conduct lie on a continuum ranging from the clearly unethical
to the clearly ethical;
• An ethical problem can be encountered as a result of a decision to conduct a particular
study or a decision not to conduct the study.

The following three levels also represent a typology of ethical problems in applied social
research:

• The individual research participants who are actively involved in the research;
• The society in and/or for which the research is conducted;
• The body of scientific knowledge to which the results and conclusions are incorporated.
2 Nature of Moral Judgment 27

The subjects for social research risk the following sorts of undesirable effects or
“damages”:

• Actual changes in their characteristics, such as physical health, attitudes, personality,

and self-concept;
• An experience that creates tension or anxiety;
• Collection of “private” information that might embarrass them or make them liable to
legal action if made public;
• Receiving unpleasant information about themselves that they might not otherwise have
to confront;
• Invasion of privacy through the collection of certain types of damaging information.

The legitimate use of power in a research setting can occur when researchers maintain
more of a partnership with their research participants, sharing common norms and values
with them that define the limits and conditions of the usage of power. Ethical problems at
the participant level become particularly acute as the role relationship between subject and
investigator loses a semblance of equality and, concurrently, as the legitimacy in the use of
power is lost by the investigator. Ethical problems at the societal level can involve more
subtle effects in research. A wide range of ethical problems are inherent in the collection,
analysis, and reporting of social research data. Ethical problems can emerge at some point
beyond the actual data-collection stage of the research process.

Nature of Moral Judgment

There might be some researchers in some fields who imagine themselves to be engaged in
the disinterested pursuit of what, once discovered, will be an unambivalent truth. They
might further anticipate that having discovered that truth, its publication or communication
will be a moral right or duty which presents only minor technical problems in its execution.
The honesty and openness in any relationship are supported by and demand reciprocal
obligations in research. Simons (1977) argues that:

“In case study research the inter-personal dimension is an integral part of the research . . .
Trust is the basis for the exchange of information.” In particular, I propose:

• if the researcher is inviting the subject to enter into a relationship which is honest and open
the researcher owes his or her subject to a similar level of honesty and openness;
• if the researcher is encouraging honesty and openness of a kind which exposes the subject
to risk of hurt or injury then the researcher has some obligation to protect the subject from
that hurt or injury.

The conception of science as a value-free enterprise has been seriously challenged, and
important questions have been raised about the appropriate relationship between scientific
28 2 Research Ethics

inquiry, objectivity, and the role of scientists’ values and beliefs. Assumptions underlying
this value-free view of science have with increasing regularity been criticized as problem-
atic. A traditional view of science was that the only values supposed to influence research
were the scientific values placed on truth and objective methodology.
Studies pertaining to ethical decision-making and attitudes toward social and behavioral
research suggest that certain extra-scientific characteristics of researchers may be
associated with differential stances on ethical issues, or influence the kinds of ethical
decisions drawn. Each subject additionally completed an ethics positions questionnaire
designed to assess individual differences in moral philosophy. The research the findings
reveal a judge’s ideology determined how the perceived benefits and costs of the research
were correlated with moral judgments. Teleologists (who rely on the consequences of an
action to judge its morality) weighted scientific benefits heavily; deontologists (who base
their ethical judgments on universal moral rules without exception) weighted participants’
costs heavily; and skeptics (who reject specific ethical principles and assume that inviolate
moral codes cannot be formulated) weighted both heavily. People may differ in:

• their evaluations of the quality and importance of consequences;

• their reliance on universal rules of ethics when making moral judgments.

Forsyth (1980) reported further success using the ethical positions classification system
to predict differences in subjects’ judgments of other’s morality (e.g., those who endorsed
different ethical ideologies significantly differed in the emphasis of good and bad
consequences, overall severity of moral judgment, and their openness to justification).
The research on ethical decision-making demonstrates that individuals systematically differ
in the ways they formulate their ethical appraisals of research, and that perfect consensus
regarding the ethical acceptability of a particular investigation cannot be expected.
Individuals tend to differ in their ethical judgments of research involving more than
minimal risk, a decision to dispense with the services of certain types of evaluators on
ethics committees and the like would probably not be the most appropriate option in the
long run.

Nature of Ethical Reactions: Applied Settings

Ethical decision-making is neither a perfectly rational nor entirely timeless enterprise, and
even after a considered judgment about the issues involved in a given situation has been
made, doubts about whether or not one’s subsequent behavior was ethical may remain. The
following five recommendations are offered for guiding the future of ethical social research
in applied settings:

• Research subjects should be considered as another granting institution, granting their

valuable time in return for generation of valuable scientific knowledge.
2 Research Ethics and Positionality 29

• The traditional cost–benefit model that underlies ethical decision-making in social

research should be modified to emphasize the outcomes of both doing and not doing
the research and also the possibilities of doing the research in another manner.
• A more detailed reporting of ethical procedures used should be required and expected in
all published social research.
• A focus on the ethical acceptability of applied research should become a critical
component of a mutually reinforcing applied scientific community.
• Evaluations of the ethical acceptability of social research require an awareness of the
ethical climate in society and in the scientific community.

A common thread running through most current professional codes of ethics and
governmental ethical standards is the recognition that each case involves a somewhat
different set of balancing considerations for and against research that raises ethical issues.
This cost–benefit approach leads to the suggestion that ethical conflicts and moral
dilemmas are inevitable in the conduct of research. In terms of guidance and application,
cost–benefit analysis raises a number of problems; its mechanisms must be examined and
reexamined and appreciated in new and different contexts. There is disagreement in the
scientific community about the ethical responsibility of social scientists for the use and
misuse of scientific discoveries. Although it appears that many social scientists now feel a
greater responsibility than in the past to society and humanity for the knowledge they
produce and are becoming increasingly involved in the decision-making process, attribu-
tion of responsibility is by no means a mutually perceived, clear-cut issue. Responsibility
for the negative effects associated with application of new or existing knowledge, or with
the failure to apply such knowledge, can vary with the nature of the effects.

Research Ethics and Positionality

Various nations have their own standards of ethics amid a general focus on research’s aim
for furthering knowledge. The principal focus of research emerges on the practice of
positionality in a university/organization. The thesis is the document that incorporating
researcher position as an ethic is a misuse, a misunderstanding of elements of philosophical
and social science theorizing based in feminist perspectives. The place to begin is that
positionality is basically epistemological. Aristotle saw intimate connections between
ethics and rhetoric: for him, every ethical position was that of a given kind of person in
given circumstances, and in a special relation with other specific people. The concrete
solution of a case was of the essence of the work. Ethics was a field not for theoretical
analysis, but for practical wisdom, it was a mistake to treat it as a universal or abstract
science. It is important to understand that general ethical practices are not only desirable but
also required in empirical research. Research is typically organized by methodology,
quantitative and qualitative, within disciplines and fields. There are standard practices
that students, researchers, and then mentors follow that they are learned through courses,
30 2 Research Ethics

texts, and actual inquiries. A key issue across empirical methodologies has been the
evolution of theorizing about objectivity for truth claims. Methods resources take one or
both of two tacts regarding ethics; embedded in design as specific tools and the consider-
ably less acknowledged, as reference to traditional philosophical positions. Ethics should
be a primary consideration rather than an afterthought and it should be at the forefront of
the researcher’s agenda. Research needs to be honestly reported, shared with participants,
not previously published, not plagiarized, and duly credited to authors that make a
contribution.
Positionality is the social and political context that creates our identity in terms of race,
class, gender, sexuality, and ability status. The term positionality first appears in episte-
mology, a branch of philosophy that studies how we know what we know. Positionality is
accepted and affirmed widely across today’s educational research methodologies, often
taken for granted. Positionality has become standard practice across various critical
research and scholarly traditions and sub-traditions that do extend beyond education and
have been developed within various disciplinary orientations of qualitative research.
Researchers who rely on qualitative research like anthropologists, social scientists, and
psychologists think a lot about their own positionality in something called a reflexivity or
positionality statement. Many researchers identify themselves with a social justice tradition
and recognize the central places of identity, critique, and politics in their inquiries.
Positionality involves being explicit about the groups and interests the postcritical
ethnographer wishes to serve as well as his or her biography. One’s race, gender, class,
ideas, and commitments are subject to the exploration as part of the ethnography. Position
may be so important that it can be seen as an epistemological claim as standpoint of
epistemology. Positionality also involves studying up so that the focus may be on institu-
tional arrangements and social movements which may be more powerful with whiteness
studies. Social justice discourse and aims are increasingly present in social sciences and
professions training and methods texts. As a case that not all qualitative researchers aim for
social justice explicitly but it is the case that many researchers ask themselves what the
outcomes of their research will produce in terms of more extended equality and less
domination and discrimination.

Epistemology, Ethics, and Educational Research

The term epistemology comes from the Greek word’s episteme and logos. Episteme can be
translated as knowledge or understanding or acquaintance, while logos can be translated as
account or argument or reason. Just as each of these different translations captures some
facet of the meaning of these Greek terms, so too does each translation capture a different
facet of epistemology itself. Although the term epistemology is no more than a couple of
centuries old, the field of epistemology is at least as old as any in philosophy. In different
parts of its extensive history, different facets of epistemology have attracted attention. In a
university research environment, ethical principle is articulated in ethical codes and policed
2 Epistemology, Ethics, and Educational Research 31

by ethics committee’s function to constrain what researchers might otherwise do in the

untrammeled pursuit of truth. Educational researchers aim to extend knowledge and
understanding in all streams of educational activity and from all perspectives including
learners, educators, policymakers, and the general public. A number of epistemic purposes
are governed by the conduct of educational or any other type of research. These might
include the following requirements:

• To unsettle or question established belief;

• To conjecture about possible alternatives and develop new ways of seeing things;
• To describe or illuminate aspects of experience;
• To search for reasons, evidence, and/or argument for warrant that might support one
belief rather than another;
• To test beliefs and establish at least provisionally the truth of the matter under
investigation.

The right of researchers independently to publish the findings of their research under
their own names is considered the norm for sponsored research, and this right should not be
lightly waived or unreasonably denied. This right is linked to the obligation on researchers
to ensure that their findings are placed in the public domain and within reasonable reach of
educational practitioners and policymakers, parents, pupils, and the wider public.
Researchers must avoid agreeing to any sponsor’s conditions that could lead to serious
contravention of any aspect of these guidelines or that undermine the integrity of the
research by imposing unjustifiable conditions on the methods to be used or the reporting of
outcomes. Democratic evaluation is an information service to the whole community about
the characteristics of an educational program. Sponsorship of the evaluation study does not
in itself confer a special claim upon this service. The democratic evaluator recognizes value
pluralism and seeks to represent a range of interests in his issue formulation. The basic
value is an informed citizenry, and the evaluator acts as broker in exchanges of information
between groups who want knowledge of each other. The debate in the literature is
sometimes expressed in terms of whether ethical considerations should trump epistemo-
logical ones, not just in research but in the wider domain of policy and practice. In
educational settings debates about race, intelligence, and educational attainment have
been rendered both complex and intense by confusion between what evidence might
sometimes indicate and what, for the very best of moral reasons, one would like it to
indicate. If research showed that redheads were scored lower marks on intelligence tests
than those with other hair, we might consider it better to suppress the finding, for fear that
they would then be discriminated against.
32 2 Research Ethics

Validity-Versus-Reliability Tradeoff

In empirical research discourses, the term reliability rarely appears except in the company
of the term validity; one synonym for reliability is “external validity.” However, it is not
entirely obvious why validity and reliability are treated as a pair in the research literature.
First of all, reliability and validity are not parallel concepts. Reliable describes an instru-
ment; valid describes a way of reasoning. Tests can be judged as reliable; but tests cannot
be judged as valid. Inferences can be judged as valid or not. Judgments of validity cannot
be applied to tests, but only to particular ways of reasoning about testing protocols and the
relationship between evidence and results. In these aspects, reliability and validity are not
epistemologically parallel or comparable concepts. Reliability and validity function are
competing criteria in research designs as their relationship involves a tradeoff in the
research. An issue related to the reliability of performance-based assessment deals with
the tradeoff between reliability and validity. As the performance task increases in com-
plexity and authenticity, which serves to increase validity, the lack of standardization
serves to decrease reliability. The qualifier inference indicates that among all scientific
tools such as hypothesis formulation, systematic observation, descriptive statistics,
minimizing measurement error, and independent replication the inference from a sample
to population grew to be considered as the most crucial part of any sort of research. If it is
true that prior to the inference revolution psychologists virtually never drew a random
sample from a population or defined a population in the first place. Educational research in
the twenty-first century is facing changes in technological affordances, political demands,
and economic fashions. In these changing contexts, there are emerging trends in social
science research that have the potential to displace the validity-reliability tradeoff as a
central concern for the evaluation of educational research. Four of those trends are: the
introduction of translational sciences, a shift from significance to replicability, a move from
inference to Big Data, and the increasing importance of consequential validity. The
criterion of reliability is associated primarily with generalization, reliability refers to the
degree to which research findings pertain to people in times and places other than those on
whom the research was conducted.
In generalizable knowledge, the activity may include the following concepts:

• Knowledge contributes to a theoretical framework of an established body of knowledge;

• Results are expected to be generalized to a larger population beyond the site of data
collection or population studied;
• Results are intended to be replicated in other settings.

In a systematic investigation, the concept of a research study must:

• Attempt to answer research questions;

• Is methodologically driven (it collects data or information in an organized and consistent
manner);
2 Validity-Versus-Reliability Tradeoff 33

• Data or information is analyzed in some way (to be as quantitative or qualitative data

analysis);
• Conclusions are drawn from the results.

In a generalized knowledge, the activity may include the following concepts:

• Knowledge contributes to a theoretical framework of an established body of knowledge;

• Results are expected to be generalized to a larger population beyond the site of data
collection or population studied;
• Results are intended to be replicated in other settings.

According to the popular textbook on qualitative research by Lincoln and Guba

(1985), the four criteria for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research (in terms
of validity and reliability) are:

• Truth value: How can one establish confidence in the “truth” of the findings of a
particular inquiry for the subjects (respondents) with which and the context in which the
inquiry was carried out?
• Applicability: How can one determine the extent to which the findings of a particular
inquiry have applicability in other contexts or with other subjects (respondents)?
• Consistency: How can one determine whether the findings of a particular inquiry would
be repeated if the inquiry were replicated with the same (or similar) subjects
(respondents) in the same (or similar) context?
• Neutrality: How can one establish the degree to which the findings of an inquiry are
determined by the subjects (respondents) and conditions of the inquiry and not by the
biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives of the inquirer?

The validity-reliability tradeoff contributes to the reproduction of stereotypes by work-

ing to specify demographic specificity and generalizability at the same time. Validity alone
may not contribute to stereotyping because there might be no attempt to generalize claims,
reliability alone would not contribute to stereotyping because there would be no attribution
of general tendencies to individuals. The methodological demand of reliability coincides
with a tendency of people to take an essentialist perspective that reifies assessments into
stable traits or essences of a person. Reification works to interpellated identities according
to the classifications that have been invented to define and specify populations. The issues
of validity-reliability tradeoff have been controversial in debates about educational
research ethics for at least a century, and yet the emphasis on inference has continued to
grow, and the reification effects have contributed to the perpetuation of stereotypes.
34 2 Research Ethics

Commodification of Educational Research

Commodification is a process where items such as goods and services are transformed into
objects for sale. People not only live within a market economy but also in a market society
within categories that have come to dominate areas of people’s lives. This has been
increasingly true within higher education institutions. Colleges and universities believe
that the education that they offer is a product and the students they recruit are treated as
customers or consumers. Higher education has faced complaints for offering poor-quality,
overpriced products, and services. As a bureaucratic and inefficient industry, it is unwilling
to adapt to new markets, is administratively bloated, technologically backward, and is
uninterested in teaching. Most academic research in the universities requires some sort of
funding. Moving into the twenty-first century, the landscape of the traditional higher
education institution has changed, including its model of conducting business. There is
an increased need to improve knowledge about organizational learning and effectiveness so
that organizations like colleges and universities can respond effectively to the needs of
changing campus environments. These two types of organizational learning are single-loop
learning and double-loop learning. One of the imperative objectives to manage conflict
within contemporary organizations is to enhance organizational learning that will provide
long-term effectiveness. There are two types of organizational learning. Single-loop
learning is the understanding of intervention in problems without changing assumptions,
goals, or policies. This results in behavioral and cognitive changes within an already
existing paradigm; asking one-dimensional questions and receiving a one-dimensional
answer. It supposes further that how it is funded and on what terms and conditions this
research might have some impact on the nature and society at large. We can smartly
observe some different models of the relationships between funder and researchers. Becher
(1985), Mirowski and Sent (2002) distinguished six strategies of which those paying for
research, use to control to a greater or lesser degree the research which is done. These
include:

• Proprietorship: Funders create dedicated research establishments in-house maximizing

their control over every aspect of the research and their rights over the utilization/
suppression of the entire research;
• Purchase: Bought-in researchers commissioned by government agencies or private
sector organizations under project contracts;
• Prescription: The concentration and steering of, usually government, research
resources through the designation of particular centers of excellence once established
may enjoy a significant measure of independence;
• Persuasion and sponsorship: The identification and designation of a preferred theme
and the encouragement of academics to put forward proposals for research relating to
this theme;
• Pluralism: Responsiveness to researcher demand selection by perceived merit of
proposals;
2 Publishing and Coaching in Intercultural Settings 35

• Patronage: Research conducted by individuals on their own agenda under publicly

funded posts in universities is in a sense a form of public patronage.

The purchase or buying in of researchers under contract brings us closest to the idea of
research as a commodity that can be bought and sold or otherwise disposed of as the
purchaser wishes. Research or educational research is not like a bag/heap of coals or any
other material commodity in some significant way nor does a local government officer have
the right to throw it in the bin, does (s)he? But why? This may be an attempt to explore
some important dimensions of this ethical question in research. In economies that rely
increasingly on the generation and application of knowledge, greater productivity is
achieved through the development and diffusion of technological innovations, most of
which are the products of basic and applied research undertaken in universities. Progress in
the agriculture, health, and environment sectors, in particular, is heavily dependent on the
application of such innovations. This capacity for research-based innovation has also
become a central element of the sort of “knowledge economy” that governments across
the world in settings as diverse. So commercial value and, at the macro level, economic
value can be attached to research products, which can be owned, bought, and sold like any
other commodity. This development is described as the economization, or economic
instrumentalization, of human activities and institutions, or even entire social subsystems.
In this wider and more appropriate sense, academic commodification means that all kinds
of scientific activities and their results are predominantly interpreted and assessed on the
basis of economic criteria.
The commodification of academic research violates the distinctive ideals, habits of
mind, and institutional purposes traditionally associated with science. Commodification
corrupts science because exchanging scientific knowledge for money threatens the moral
integrity, social purpose, and/or epistemic quality of science. Just as prostitution denigrates
sex and bribery denigrates government, commercialized research denigrates science.
Researchers must avoid agreeing to any sponsor’s conditions that could lead to serious
contravention of any aspect of these guidelines or that undermine the integrity of the
research by imposing unjustifiable conditions on the methods to be used or the reporting.

Publishing and Coaching in Intercultural Settings

It may be of high interest for the universities, to introduce emerging researchers into new
strategies of publishing and of performance assessment. They might have a vital interest to
support and coach researchers to produce visible excellence and to get and administer third-
party funds. During these respects, coaching of emerging researchers counts as a strategic
investment not only into younger scholars, but also into the reputation of the university into
their budget. In a synchronic perspective it has to be considered multilayers of parallel
changes and transitions as diverse contexts of research, when different research cultures,
definitions of quality, and evaluation cultures interact and compete. Against this
36 2 Research Ethics

background most of the emerging researchers have to face diverse, contradicting, tasks,
challenges, obligations, and commitments within universities or projects. Theories of
modernization, individualization, and risk management as well as analyses about a reflex-
ive modernity could be served as instruments to explain such contradictions, uncertainties,
paradoxes, ambiguities, and ambivalences among the researchers. We use the field of
educational research in this multicultural context to investigate in the different definitions
of quality and of quality assessment, as they are shown by a culturally heterogeneous
research community, by different evaluation institutions and agencies, especially regarding
the importance of educational research journals. The following uncertainties (questions)
may arise among emerging researchers:

• What counts for career?

• Quality of products or quality of networking?
• National or international recognition?
• How do I get access to relevant journals, and how do I identify low quality, predatory or
fake journals?
• Who are the influential gatekeepers to the academic market?
• How is teaching and research quality balanced?
• Which standards and expectations do I have to follow?
• Which methodological profile offers best career opportunities?
• Who defines these standards?
• Who assesses my papers/proposals?
• How is inter-disciplinarily related to which discipline(s)?
• To what extent should I consider psychological, sociological, ethnographical, philo-
sophical, etc. references?

In the present scenario, bibliometrics is mainly targeted at three different interest groups
with three different lines of applications:

• Bibliometrics for Scholars or Scientific Information: Researchers from scientific

disciplines/from the most heterogeneous interest group may get information about
networks, access to information, and hot topics in a discipline;
• Bibliometrics for Bibliometricians in Methodology: Basic bibliometric research is
done in an interest group, which applies it methodologically;
• Bibliometrics for Science Policy and Management: The large field of research
evaluation is currently the most important aspect of bibliometrics. Most of the compar-
ative studies are done on research assessment, methods to measure output and perfor-
mance are developed.

Emerging researchers are confronted with numerous evaluation requests, not being
aware of the application, the output, the impact, and the individual consequences of
evaluation results, e.g., regarding career, funding, support, organizational investment.
2 Ethics and Feminist Research 37

Ethics and Feminist Research

Ethics is widely concerned with the morality of human conduct. In connection to social
research, it refers to the moral deliberation, choice, and accountability on the part of
researchers throughout the research process. What makes research feminist? A classic
answer is that it is research done by, for, and about women. Another is that “feminist
researchers produce feminist research”.
In the words of Priscilla Alderson (1995),

Researchers themselves have written extensively on ethics in social research. While feminist
researchers certainly have not been the only authors to undertake reflexive accounts of the
politics of empirical research practice, it is fair to say that such reflections have done and do
form a substantial feature of feminist publications on the research process. Indeed, some have
characterized feminist ethics as a booming industry.

The concrete relations of dependency and connection to an ethics of care are:

• the ethics of care involves different moral concepts, responsibilities, and relationships
rather than rules and rights;
• bound to concrete situations rather than being formal and abstract;
• the “activity of caring,” rather than as a set of principles which can simply be followed.
• to deal with dependency and responsibility;
• radically from rights ethics;
• the highest normative principles;
• the rights in situations of moral conflict.

Most of the feminist political theorists who advocate an ethic of care perspective on
issues argue that a feminist approach to ethics should not seek to formulate moral principles
to stand above power and context. Ethics is about how to deal with conflict, disagreement,
and ambivalence rather than attempting to eliminate it. A feminist ethics of care can help
the researchers to think about how they do this by illuminating more fully the sources of
moral dilemmas and formulating meaningful epistemological strategies to deal with these
dilemmas, even if only on a temporary basis. A contingent attempt to generate some
guidelines of ethical research practice to arise out a feminist ethics of CARE. It indicates
where these ethics are elaborated empirically to answer the following questions:

• Who are the people involved in and affected by the ethical dilemma raised in the
research?
• What is the context for the dilemma in terms of the specific topic of the research and the
issues it raises personally and socially for those involved?
• What are the specific social and personal locations of the people involved in relation to
each other?
38 2 Research Ethics

• What are the needs of those involved and how are they interrelated?
• Who am I identifying with, who am I posing as other, and why?
• What is the balance of personal and social power between those involved?
• How will those involved understand our actions and are these in balance with our
judgment about our own practice?
• How can we best communicate the ethical dilemmas to those involved, give them room
to raise their views, and negotiate with and between them?
• How will our actions affect relationships between the people involved?

It can be hoped that the researchers will find these guidelines useful for consideration in
deliberating ethical dilemmas in their research practice. It cannot be claimed that this list of
guidelines for working with a feminist ethics of care in social research constitutes a
definitive model. Rather, one can see it as work in progress. It can be offered here in the
spirit of working toward a means of implementing a feminist ethics of care as a guide for
how ethical dilemmas in empirical research may be practically resolved.

Review Questions

1.
What do you understand by research scandals?
2.
How can ethics and moral be interrelated in research?
3.
What is the difference between pure knowledge and action-oriented knowledge?
4.
How a dilemma is apparent in research situations for researchers?
5.
Explain the term action decision-making in research.
6.
What do you understand by the nature of moral judgment?
7.
What is the difference between the ethics of science and the ethics of research?
8.
Explain common characteristics of ethical problems in social research.
9.
Explain the levels to represent a typology of ethical problems in applied social
research.
10. What are professional codes of ethics under governmental ethical standards?
11. What are uncertainties among emerging researchers?
12. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) Epistemology
(b) Validity-Versus-Reliability Tradeoff
(c) Generalizable Knowledge
(d) Systematic Investigation
(e) Generalized Knowledge
(f) Validity and Reliability in Research.
(g) Ethics and Feminist Research
Further Reading 39

Further Reading

Brandenburg R, McDonough S (2019) Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher educa-
tion. Springer Nature, Singapore
Burgess RG (2005) The ethics of educational research. The Falmer Press, New York, NY
Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists: between ethical conduct and regulatory
compliance. SAGE Publications, London
Kimmel AJ (1988) Ethics and values in applied social research. Sage Publications, Inc,
Philadelphia, PA
Loue S (2002) Textbook of research ethics: theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
New York, NY
Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T (2005) Ethics in qualitative research. SAGE Publications,
New York, NY
Oliver P (2003) The student’s guide to research ethics. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill
Education, Berkshire
Sieber JE (1982) The ethics of social research fieldwork, regulation, and publication. Springer,
New York, NY
Smeyers P, Depaepe M (2018) Educational research: ethics, social justice, and funding dynamics.
Springer International Publishing AG, Cham
Yadav SK (2015) Elements of research writing. UDH Publishers and Distributers, New Delhi
Ethics in Scientific Research
3

Overview

Science is one of our most important modern institutions in the field of research. According
to www.dictionary.com, ethics may be defined as a system of moral principles and the rules
of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group,
culture, etc. On the bases of this definition, the question arises, what does this mean to
science? The answer to this question is very unclear. Robert Merton (American Sociolo-
gist 1968) first identified these elements of the “ethos” of science in his work as an
ethnographer of science, and he noted that failures to abide by these principles may result
in scientific research program’s failures. Research in science is a steady progress, by which
we have gained a better understanding, greater ability of prediction, and ever-increasing
control over our world, has improved our lives in countless ways. As a human institution, it
is fallible. The scientific community has by and at large agreed upon a standard of
behavioral principles to which the vast majority of practicing scientists adhere. The
exceptions receive most of the attention and ruin it for those of us who are professionally
honest. The baffling paradox is that, more often than not, the offenders get caught
red-handed and red-faced, ruining their careers. If this is the case, why do they do it?
The professional organizations in all of the scientific domain have already established
guidelines for their member’s ethical behavior. When the public was less aware and
generally poorly informed about science and the academy, failures of scientific integrity
may have been less harmful to the health of scientific institutions and to their general
political support. But in a world of increasingly available knowledge, and in which a
greater emphasis is given to democratic processes, the dangers of lapses of scientific
integrity and research ethics are increased. First of all, the observer must identify where
the ethical violations in science occur and what scientific misconduct is? Motivations are
different for each crime, and observer simply cannot determine why people do something

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 41

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_3
42 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

wrong or how to prevent it if we do not know what is wrongly done by us in the entire
research process. Ethical violations can be committed in many ways. Some of them are:

• Intentional negligence in the acknowledgment of previous work;

• Deliberate fabrication of data we have collected;
• Deliberate omission of known data that does not agree with the hypothesis;
• Passing another researcher’s data as one’s own;
• Publication of results without the consent of all of the researchers;
• Failure to acknowledge all of the researchers who performed the work;
• Conflict of interest; Repeated publication of too-similar results or reviews
• Breach of confidentiality;
• Misrepresenting other’s previous work.

When fabrication of data is discovered, the penalty is very severe. The offending
researcher might be fired, denied a degree (If a research scholar), or even have funding
revoked. Further, the research paper or papers containing the fabricated data would
certainly be retracted so that nobody else falls victim to this crime on science, and
significant embarrassment be falling to the journal, the researchers, and the associated
university or company. Not only the researcher but also the field can potentially suffer
severe repercussions when the fraud occurs. The authors, while lauding the corrective
nature of science, go on to point out several of the consequences of retracted articles, for the
reasons:

• Diversion of scientists down unproductive lines of research;

• Unfair distribution of scientific resources;
• Inappropriate medical treatment for patients;
• Erosion of public confidence in science;
• Erosion of public financial support for science.

It is not only academic institutions but also governmental research institutions/

organizations that suffer from scientific ethical violence. The main violation that occurred
is that scientists are failing to disclose the potential conflicts of interest. The modern form of
data manipulation is also the major problem of scientific ethical violence in research.
It might also be argued that it is logical to reuse the same figure throughout a single
publication. A researcher is allowed to mention and/or reuse prior results, such as an image,
in a subsequent research paper, provided that enough new research is also reported that
either builds upon the research previously reported or shows it in a new light and it is
properly referenced. So far as the graph or the figure is concern, no specific feature within
an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The groupings of
images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields, or exposures must
be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (using dividing lines) and in the text of
the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if
3 Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics 43

and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.
Nonlinear adjustments (changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend.
There are multiple factors influencing the punishments handed down, including the
severity and scope of the ethical violence in research, the culture of the jury. This may
always be the case, and that might be acceptable. By and large, although sociological
penalties may vary, the scientific ones do not. Almost in all cases, the guilty researcher’s
work is never wholly trusted again, their fraudulent work is to be retracted, and they might
even find themselves blacklisted by select journals/funding agencies/research
organizations/apex bodies/scientific community.

Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics

Science is an institution that may proceed best when scientists work according to certain
principles which are not necessarily ethical principles, but which demand certain behaviors
that we might call ethical within the domain of research. Specifically, for science to work
properly, scientists must embrace the principles of communalism, universalism, organized
skepticism, and disinterestedness. Science must be universal for research programs to
succeed or indeed have any meaning. The truth must not be specific to any one culture,
time, or place, but rather inherent somehow in nature and discoverable by the methods of
science. The truth must not be specific to any culture, time, or place, but rather inherent
somehow in nature and discoverable by the methods of science. It is a communal endeavor,
pursued by various people at various times, observing, making hypotheses, testing, and
devising theories all in reference to the work of others.
Science has not always been pursued in a manner to conform with our modern notions
of scientific ethics, especially with regard to the use of human subjects. It is from a rather
sordid history of scientist’s use of humans as subjects that the modern version of bioethics
and its various related applied ethical fields evolved. Another approach to ethics is based
upon the notion of duties. The term “deontology” derives from the Greek for duty Deon.
Deontology overcomes a major limitation of virtue ethics theory in that it is meant to
provide some guide for action as opposed to individual character. According to deontolog-
ical ethics, we must abide by certain duties which can be discovered through a number of
means. In rights-based deontology, our duties stem from our obligation to recognize and
protect various rights (like life, liberty, property, etc.). Immanuel Kant formulated his
categorical imperative in at least three different ways throughout several works, including
the following:

• Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law,
applicable to everyone in a similar situation.
• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself or other), as both the
means of an action, but also as an end.
44 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

• Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a hypothetical
“kingdom of ends,” and therefore only in such a way that would harmonize with such a
kingdom if those laws were binding on all others.

Issues of Authorship

Publishing may be defined the currency of academia. It may be the measure of the worth of
an investigator in any academic field. Scientific publication is the fundamental unit of
values of the various professions of science, and the essential means of ensuring that the
methods of science work over time. In other words, the manner by which hypotheses
become tested, challenged, confirmed, or falsified over time is through the medium of
written words, and authorship is a complicated matter both for ethical and practical reasons.
A scientific work of authorship is the cumulative result of a research program’s reaching
some conclusion sufficient enough to warrant dissemination to the community of
researchers. The scientific purpose is to expose results to testing, to afford other researchers
an opportunity to challenge results so that they can either confirm or falsify some hypothe-
sis or theory.
There are a large number of duties to come with those roles, and in publishing a number
of new duties arise. These duties multiply as the number and types of stakeholders change.
A scientific research paper involves not just the author, but also co-authors, fellow
researchers, funding agencies, host institutions, as well as the scientific community and
the public at large. The primary duty of authorship in science is to bring and justify the
truth. The truth demands the scientific author an experiment to be replicated, that the data
reported is the data observed, that any failures of shortcomings are properly noted, and that
to the best of the scientist’s ability, he/she is taking sufficient account of all of the factors
that are relevant so that others may challenge, test, confirm, or falsify without wasting
inordinate time or effort. The truth demands transparency not just of data but of language.
Authors of scientific papers often have differing responsibilities based upon their particular
areas of expertise. Discovering authorship is easier without co-authorship, and in the case
of co-authorship may become increasingly difficult with an increasing number of authors.
There has been increasing focus, especially in the humanities but also in the sciences, on
the problem of plagiarism. As with failing to provide appropriate sources so that future
researchers can trace back one’s work, using the words of another pose’s problems for
scientific integrity. There is another form of plagiarism that does harm in science: so called
self-plagiarism. This is the act of taking one’s own words from previous publications and
republishing them in another work without properly attributing their origin. Although the
moral harm of taking credit for another’s expressions is not a risk in self-plagiarism, the
risks and harms to science are still present.
Department chairs, laboratory heads, and others have become accustomed to being
named as co-authors by virtue of those positions and their authority, with little resistance by
their fields or institutions where this sort of practice may have become accepted and
3 Peer Review’s Role 45

perceived as correct practice. Proofreaders or even editors are not authors. Authors create
something, and while proofreaders and editors contribute to the shape of the creation, they
are not necessarily the creators of the final product. Authorship is a responsibility. The
scientist who takes on the mantle of honor and creativity, as well as the associated
institutional and cultural rewards afforded by authorship, must also be accountable for
their work. Accountability for the sake of science means that other scientists can trust that
the authors know as much as possible about their own work, have verified that their words
properly represent it, and that all those claiming to be authors are personally responsible for
their contributions as well as the work as whole.

Peer Review’s Role

Peer-review process is perfectly capable of detecting some blatant instances of scientific

ethical violence, doing so is neither trivial nor is it the primary goal of peer review. To do
so, deceit might be assumed, rather than truth, and with that change, the whole scientific
enterprise might collapse. For peer review certain research topic/area experts are appointed
as reviewers by the editorial chief of the publication. Reviewers have to comment not only
on the quality of the research and its presentation as well as its validity in their review
report. Verification of the entire research work is generally left to the greater scientific
community after the research is published that is if the work is important enough to be used
or further development. By all means, peer review has at least an academic obligation to
report ethical violence, it might certainly be argued that in some cases the peer-review
process in its current incarnation may encourage limited violation even be unethical itself.
When a reviewer is being unreasonable in his/her justification for rejecting a paper, the
editor must take action and either opt to publish the paper despite the reviewer’s objections
or send the paper to an additional reviewer for what would hopefully be a more reasonable
review. A reviewer should not fear about retribution from the author for any unreasonably
negative review. The editor knows who reviewed the research paper, but the editor may not
know that there are personal or professional conflicts which may have influenced the
review.
One must remember that every science is based on trust. An exceedingly negative
review might not appear unreasonable to the editor, it might appear diligent in nature.
Despite the difficulties with anonymous peer-review process, it might be the best option in
executing/conducting research. The check in science is most essential to the progress of
science. If reviewers were to be compelled to critique the manuscripts less harshly for fear
of reprisals, the science would inevitably become sloppy. The argument might also be valid
that anonymous reviews can facilitate the theft of data by the reviewer. It is a matter of trust
and faith in science. Within the anonymous peer-review system currently employed, theft is
exceedingly rare. If it does happen, the scientific community should ensure that the guilty
individual must never to be in such a position to do so again. Peer review does not prevent
scientific research misconduct. The infractions of the peer review are unable to identify and
46 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

should not be expected to identify the conflicts of interest and breaches of confidentiality. It
might easily and logically be reasoned that the responsibility of preventing these forms of
scientific misconduct lies with the institutions that the researcher in question works for. A
reviewer can certainly commit a conflict of interest violation or a breach of confidentiality
violation in the research.
Peer reviewers can also be unethical. They might misuse the original research work by
forwarding it to their own researcher. There is no accountability with the current peer-
review process since it is anonymous. If a reviewer is sent a publication from a competitor,
and the reviewer allows the publication to sit unreviewed for months while his own lab
finishes competing work, he/she is abusing the system and committing scientific research
violation.

Research Ethics in Human/Animal Subjects (Care)

Beyond the four principles associated with bioethics are numerous other approaches to
ethics, the good, and the treatment of others in the course of medicine and research. When
we talk on issues of bioethics it is meant by “care ethics.” Care is an emotional state or
readiness on the top of attentiveness, and care ethics views those in positions that are
especially able to be responsive as best engaging their ethical duties when they proactively
provide care for others over whom they are best suited to care. When a researcher conducts
drug-based studies in practical aspects, he/she has to follow certain guidelines based on
international research apex committees. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has outlined so many guidelines and rules, which can be visited on the following websites:

• http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm
• http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm090275.htm

The data used by FDA to evaluate the safety and security of human and animal clinical
studies ethically include:

• Toxicity;
• Observed/demonstrated (lack of adverse side effects);
• Risks of clinical studies with humans and other animals;
• Any potential adverse effects, especially carcinogenic and teratogenic;
• The level of use of dose and duration that can be approved.

It must be noted that these guidelines are operative whether it is drug-based research or
even sociological or survey-based research. The institutions conducting research (using
humans as an objective) and receiving public funding are expected to form different
committees to evaluate all research projects that involve human and animal subjects. It
should be the job of such committees to ensure that every possible safeguard for the
3 Research Ethics in Human/Animal Subjects (Care) 47

participants has to be taken. One of the outcomes of this may be a basic set of the following
ethical principles:

• Respect for persons (to acknowledge autonomy and protect those with lower
autonomy);
• Informed consent (determination and willing to participate in the research study);
• Beneficence (do no harm or maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms);
• Justice (who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens?) can be
formulated as:
– to each person an equal share;
– to each person according to individual need;
– to each person according to individual effort;
– to each person according to societal contribution;
– to each person according to merit.

The general (application) principles to the conduct of scientific practical research deal
with the following:

• Informed consent (a process to receiving, comprehending the Information, and then

volunteering for the study) includes:
– Information:
The research procedure;
Their purposes risks and anticipated benefits;
Alternative procedures (involvement of therapy);
Statement offering the subject the opportunity to ask questions, to withdraw from
the research, even after the beginning of research.
– Comprehension (information to be presented to the volunteers in a manner to allow
them to ask questions during the explanation and also to fully understand what the
study entails);
– Voluntariness (no threats or any other form of coercion can be employed to gain the
volunteer’s cooperation with the study).
• Assessment of risks and benefits (the assessment of risks and benefits to other modes,
to achieve the same ends must be put into the context of the present study) as:
– The nature and scope of risks and benefits, and the systematic assessment of risks and
benefits at large to the institution;
– The benefit-to-risk ratio must be in the favor of benefits to the researcher. If the risks
greatly outweigh the benefits, it may be improper to conduct the study, and the
committee overseeing such work at an institution might not give the researcher’s
approval.
• Selection of subjects (cannot be made based upon social, racial, sexual, and cultural
biases that persist in the society)
48 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

With reference to animal testing process, pain and some other side effects become nearly
impossible to measure accurate readings. Most of the people are observant and aware
enough to be able to look at an animal and they know that it is under discomfort position.
The Animal Welfare Act sets the following guidelines:

• Adequate care and treatment for housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veteri-
nary care, and extreme conditions must be provided by the facilities;
• Dogs must be provided opportunities to exercise;
• Primates must be provided opportunity for psychological well-being;
• Anesthesia or pain-relieving medication must be provided to minimize pain or distress;
• Unnecessary duplication of specific experiments using regulated animals is prohibited;
• An institutional animal care and use committee will oversee the use of animals in the
experiments must be established;
• This committee will be responsible for ensuring the facility complies with the Animal
Welfare Act and providing documentation of compliance with the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service;
• The committee must contain at least three members, and membership must include one
veterinarian and one person not affiliated with the facility.

The Nuremberg Code describes a series of duties owed by scientists/researchers to

human subjects and to society and has become the basis for internationally recognized
boundaries of behaviors in conducting scientific study. This code describes ten specific
duties as under:

• Voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal

capacity.
• The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in
some other way.
• It should be based on previous knowledge (like an expectation derived from animal
experiments) that justifies the experiment.
• The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental
suffering and injuries.
• It should not be conducted when there is any reason to believe that it implies a risk of
death or disabling injury.
• The risks of the experiment should be in proportion to (that is, not exceed) the expected
humanitarian benefits.
• Preparations and facilities must be provided that adequately protect the subjects against
the experiment’s risks.
• The staff who conduct or take part in the experiment must be fully trained and
scientifically qualified.
• The human subjects must be free to immediately quit the experiment at any point when
they feel physically or mentally unable to go on.
3 Issues of Intellectual Property and Science 49

• Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that
continuation would be dangerous.

Issues of Intellectual Property and Science

In today’s research perspective, copyright, patents, and trademarks are the most common
forms of intellectual property. Scientists, researchers, and academics must be aware of and
careful about each of these at some point in their careers and while pursuing their research.
Intellectual property is a class of legal protections first created about two and half century
ago. Archimedes could not prevent others from using his ideas about moving water to use,
nor could he stop them if they created the same mechanisms completely independently.
Without some law to protect a creator, ideas can be freely exchanged and used without
depriving anyone of their property. Prior to intellectual property (IP), property laws
protected things that are naturally excludable. Intellectual property is part of our modern
economic landscape and has become essential to technological development and creativity
in aesthetic media, and so we should be wary of how it interacts and may present ethical
issues for, science and its institutions.
Patents and copyright are state-created rights, and their terms of protection have varied
over time. A copyright is typically created by the mere creation of some work in some fixed
medium. Copyrights protect the particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself, as long
as there is no “substantial similarity” between two expressions of the same idea, then there
is likely no “infringement” of copyright. Patents work quite differently. Unlike copyrights,
which come into being the moment a work is created, a patent must be applied for with
some bureaucracy, and a review process determines whether it will issue. Once someone
obtains a patent, they can prevent others from reproducing the object or process patented
and maintain a monopoly on it for about 20 years. Science does not progress if when
something new is discovered about nature it is not properly disclosed and tested by others.
Fair use rights make complete control over expressions impossible. Thus, a copyright
holder cannot prevent another author from excerpting or quoting from his or her paper. Fair
use means that others are free to quote and excerpt the work of another to some limited
extent, including especially for fair comment, refutation, critique, and parody. Intellectual
property is a prevalent force in modern science and technology, and researchers will
doubtless have opportunities to engage in ethical dilemmas potentially raised by these
legal tools.
At the very least, scientists should be mindful of the duties, both moral and contractual,
that arise with the publication and creation of the products of scientific inquiry, as well as
the expectations that come from various forms of employment and other relations among
scientists, their institutions, funding agencies, and governments. The intention behind
intellectual property law has generally be considered: to create an incentive for creativity
and invention. Basic science typically focuses on discovery, scientists ought to concern
themselves primarily with investigation of nature and her laws. The law of intellectual
50 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

property typically attempts to protect the proper domain of science from that of technology,
which can legitimately and presumably efficiently hold monopolies over inventions with-
out impeding science.

Conflicts of Interests

Scholar’s affiliation to a university, funding agencies, department, corporate partners, or

even family and friends may present conflicts of duties that can impede research or cause
harm. Sorting out the nature of our duties, and being aware of the various individuals and
institutions to which we owe duties, is essential to avoiding the harms that may come. All
the conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, nor need they be harmful, and so recognizing
when and how to avoid, or at least be transparent, about conflicts when they arise and
prevent harm when possible is crucial. The proper aim of science is developing a clearer
understanding of nature. Through well-established methods of observation, hypothesis,
testing, and building of theories, we gain an ever better understanding of the objects and
processes that rule the universe. In order to conduct this sort of study properly, we need to
be in a state of equipoise, in which our emotions are not vested in a particular outcome
other than discovering whether our hypotheses can be corroborated by evidence or
falsified.
Maintaining a proper understanding of the role of science and the researcher in its
institutions helps us to start to understand how conflicts of interest may arise, be
recognized, and dealt with. The challenge of scientists and the institutions that support
them and their projects is to attempt to marshal the various goals and aims involved in all
stakeholders and help ensure that they are directed in a similar manner, toward similar
goals, mindful of the potential pitfalls that may arise if interests conflict and are unattended
to. Science is an evolving institution involving people in various fields generally interacting
in ways that are socially constructed, bound by poorly define mechanisms, and interlinked
with other institutions.
Universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism all suggest
certain necessary behaviors, and all assume something about the nature of science and its
aims. Scientists, just like members of any other profession, have interests outside of their
work. They have families, jobs, friends, and activities they pursue that have little or nothing
to do with the general goal of science. Those interests tend not to conflict, even when they
may diverge or have essentially nothing to do with the goal of science. As science has
professionalized both within and outside academic institutions, the possibility for conflicts
among personal interests and those of science has increased, sometimes in ways that may
be difficult to spot. The career, ego, notoriety, or fame of a particular scientist always had
the ability to create some conflict, but when attached to other offices and incentives, the
effects may become compounded. The focus must ultimately fall upon the individual
researcher. When we recognize that we are all susceptible to various influences, even
mundane and perfectly understandable needs for security in our incomes and our jobs, not
3 Dignity 51

to mention careers, prestige, profits, and other natural and common interests, then we
should be aware that we can lose sight of the interests of science itself. Transparency is
certainly an important tool, but it is not the final end or goal. Even with transparency, actors
may not always act according to the proper aims of science and may allow intervening
interests to cloud the pursuit of the truth.

Autonomy

The term “autonomy” stands from ancient Greek letters combination, autonomia (noun),
autonomous (adjective) from autos—self, and nomos—law which means self-governing.
According to Locke, autonomy regards mostly political life and forms the basis for modern
liberal revolutions, placing the consent of the governed and freedom of personal conscience
as essential elements of a just polity, including respect for fundamental natural rights of life,
liberty, and property. The major philosophical notion opposing the notion of autonomy is
paternalism, or the notion that someone in some position of authority over another has the
ability and even right to coerce or prevent the other from acting, or has the ability to act
toward them in a way that violates their will. As we are limited by our capacities and so too
will our free choices be actually limited. The major philosophical notion opposing the
notion of autonomy is “paternalism,” or the notion that someone in some position of
authority over another has the ability and even right to coerce or prevent the other from
acting, or has the ability to act toward them in a way that violates their will. In modern
medical ethics, some mix of autonomy and paternalism tends to dominate, a conception we
might call “procedural” autonomy that recognizes that the freedom of individuals to choose
rationally, to govern their own body and conscious responsibly, may differ from one
individual to another, and within one individual over time. We can accept that parents
act “paternalistically” toward their children without viewing as a moral wrong. There is the
proper role of a parent to help their children develop the capacity to be rational, free agents
while restricting their choices in the process of that development. Parental paternalism is
expected to dissolve over time and to be replaced with the rational free agency of their
children as they grow. Physicians and scientists in other fields interacting with human
subjects stand in a special relation to the knowledge they have about the science they are
employing as a parent may be to their years of experience in directing the agency of a child
as they grow. Procedural autonomy recognizes that diminished capacities impact the ability
of agents to exercise autonomy and so enforce certain standards of behavior to correct for it.

Dignity

Dignity may be a difficult concept which is interrelated in many ways with the notion of
autonomy and the best evidence in the absence of tracts in research. Research is intended to
develop knowledge that is useful and may harm those who are of its subjects. There is
52 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

always the likelihood that a human subject in an experiment is being used as a means to
some end. As a fact, as part of the consent procedure, subjects must be warned that the
research they are taking part in is not intended to help them, and they should have no
expectation of benefit, even while they may be harmed. During the course of a study, an
autonomous person with dignity must have the means and knowledge to stop their
involvement at any time and without duress. The subjects must be treated as though
researchers have the capacity to consent and treated according to their individual capacities.
Each one of us is an individual, and even when being used as an instrumentality in some
study, must be taken to be individuals with their own identities, needs, capacities,
weaknesses, etc. Dignity may be impaired when subjects are treated merely as data points
and not as fully autonomous individuals with all the human rights to which they are due.
Respecting the dignity of individuals requires that, since we are treating subjects as some
means to an end, we nonetheless acknowledge and strive toward providing them with the
best quality of life in the process consistent with our study. Treating subjects with dignity,
and subjects “having” dignity, are not the same, though both are considered generally
required.

Beneficence/Non-maleficence

Beneficence and non-maleficence are closely related but not the same in terms of research
ethics. Non-maleficence is the principle not to harm. Beneficence is the action we take
while non-maleficence is when we avoid the action. It shows that, if one acts to cause good,
the value we place on that as opposed to merely not causing harm is typically different.
Besides the general good that a researcher might feel that she contributes through the
advancement of knowledge, each study that uses human subjects must be designed and
intended to promote the good. Scientific investigations using human subjects must have
some clear goal toward revealing knowledge or developing technologies. Curing diseases,
relieving suffering, improving health, etc. may be all positive goals and may warrant the
use of human subjects in direct studies. Accordingly, the research must be neutral and
nonharmful in the end, but it fails the qualification for beneficence that is necessary for a
study to be ethical. Beneficence is satisfied by both internal motivations and concrete
actions and results while research may benefit the good even if it causes harm in the
process. Promoting the good throughout the course of the study may impact the ongoing
research. Science may be considered as a public good. This deals that it exists due to the
patience, goodwill, and funding of the public and ought to positively impact the public.
Scientists and the public at large are mutually interdependent and science must improve the
public, whether by acquiring of true, basic knowledge, or by increasing the health and
general welfare of those who allow science to proceed. It must be conducted in light of
these reciprocal duties.
3 Research Ethics Committees 53

Vulnerability and Justice

Justice may be considered as another basic requirement of equal treatment and is linked to
the notion of dignity. The modern notion of justice balances principles of autonomy against
the provision of certain goods. There might be a tension between the good of individual
liberty, which always exists, contrasted against the necessity for basic goods and unequal
distribution of those goods. Justice is impaired both by nature and by circumstance in
research and innovations. Unequal apportionment of capacities and opportunities for
developing abilities, as well as uneven distribution of basic and secondary goods impact
on the prospects of individuals. Justice requires that members of historically underprivi-
leged, poorly protected, and vulnerable classes be treated with extra protection when using
them as subjects in studies. Justice can be infringed even when people are treated objec-
tively, equally given that the principle recognizes that we begin from unequal positions not
as a matter of choice or desert. Justice may require special treatment for disadvantaged
populations and individuals. Special care beyond what might have been necessitated in the
same research study using individuals with better educations would be necessary to
properly protect the dignity and autonomy of the study participants. The same would be
true if children or other vulnerable populations are used. There is an inherent conflict in the
desire to provide better treatments to vulnerable populations and the need to use vulnerable
subjects in studies. Vulnerability implies diminished capacities and the ethics committee
can take special care in reviewing and conforming a proposed study and its consent form to
account for potential vulnerabilities. Children, the mentally handicapped, underprivileged
and elderly and others with diminished capacities as well as potential sources of duress
flowing from these states must all be carefully scrutinized and where possible accounted for
so that vulnerable individuals and populations are justly treated in the course of a study.

Research Ethics Committees

Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the common fixtures with
which researchers around the world must be quite familiar. In the scientific world,
researchers are mandated by laws and regulations and research involving human subjects
is generally guided and overseen by such committees (as discussed earlier). Ethics
committees are composed of a panel of experts, community members, a legal expert who
serve without pay (honorary) and have no stake in the outcome of the protocols they
review. Their independence and objectivity must be paramount, and they should have some
background in both the sciences involved and the bioethical principles to be applied
research. Members ought to undergo some ongoing training, including by keeping up to
date on cases as they are reported, and engaging in some discussion of emerging issues in
bioethics, human subjects research, or animal use in experiments if they happen to sit on an
animal research ethics committee. Clinical research has been divided into various phases,
each requiring differing levels of oversight, and often undertaken by different types of
54 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

institutions. In an evidence-based medical scientific environment, all clinical studies must

first be validated by some basic study that suggests the need or potential benefit from
pre-clinical study. Animal studies tend to be regulated by national laws, and ethics
committees routinely review animal studies to ensure that they are conducted properly
depending on the local laws and regulations. Animal testing must first be done using
suitable animal models and minimizing the harms to the test subjects.
Much of the basic science in drug discovery is done in academic institutions, most of the
current development where potentially therapeutic compounds are turned into marketable
drugs is conducted by industry in conjunction with clinical centers, hospitals, and research
universities with medical colleges. At every phase, good scientific practice must be
ensured, but also the unnecessary harm and suffering to humans, both in the trial and
intended as eventual consumers, must be closely monitored and avoided consistent with the
Nuremberg Principles.
There exist numerous stakeholders involved in the development of new medical articles,
including scientists, government agencies, drug companies, research institutes, funding
agencies, patients and patient rights groups, among others. A new type of stakeholder has
emerged called a Clinical Trial Services Provider or Clinical Research Organization. All of
these various stakeholders have ethical duties, perhaps at differing stages, throughout the
course of a clinical trial. Careful understanding of the nature of the relationships of each to
the other, and especially to subjects involved in studies as participants, can help to avoid
ethical errors and resulting harms. All of them tend to have some interest in the develop-
ment and marketing of an article, and their participation in the positive and negative
responsibility associated with their roles may need to be considered at various stages of
discovery and development. Ethics committee meetings should adopt standardized
procedures conforming with best practices as currently understood by peers, should be
conducted professionally by members who attend having read the protocols in depth before
their meetings and with questions. Ethics committee members should concentrate on these
aspects of good clinical trial design in reviewing protocols, although their inquiry does not
end there.

Science and Society

Science is considered as an amorphous, distributed, and dynamic institution, composed of

many other institutions and falling under the control of no central body. Body of knowl-
edge that science develops becomes a part of our common heritage. Practicing the
professions, investigating nature and society, depends upon a trust placed by the general
public in scientists who will pursue the truth dispassionately, and with an eye toward the
general good. There is no right for science to subsist on the weal of the public, and it is a
great honor to be entrusted with the ability to do so as a scientist to delve into nature and her
mysteries not because there is potentially some monetary profit or material good to be
obtained, but because we as a researcher care about the search for truth as a good in itself.
3 Review Questions 55

To be scientific, a hypothesis must be testable. It must be capable of either confirmation or

falsification by experiment. Any number of biases and errors can cause false positives or
negatives, and because we know that the laws of nature are universal and not confined to
any particular lab or environment, we can only eventually become more certain of a
hypothesis and perhaps adopt it as a theory if others confirm it, adjusting and correcting
for potential biases and errors. Scientists who are familiar with both the history of science
and the history of its faults and errors will be more able to confront their own activities,
prepared better to act in ways that better conform to its norms, and less likely to need the
help of other “experts” in scientific ethics and integrity should the need for ethical
consideration arise.
The scientific community is rapidly changing and the nature of science too is dynamic,
perhaps more so than ever. Because of the rapid pace of scientific and technological
advance, it is incumbent upon us to stay abreast of its advances, to consider our notions
about the good in scientific conduct and research, and engage with researchers in as many
different fields as possible to comb for cases, test, and maybe revise our notions, and
develop better methods of helping to create an atmosphere of scientific integrity. Society
owes a debt to those who work within its norms, according to ethical principles, and always
with an eye toward the steady accumulation of better knowledge about the universe and its
laws. By and large, the majority of scientists act ethically, whether consciously or not, and
we are all thankful for their commitment and contributions to an ever progressing society,
benefitting as we do both materially and intellectually from their tireless pursuits.

Review Questions

1. What are the ethical theories that help inform the Nuremberg Code? Which principles
are based upon which philosophies?
2. How does the ethos of science demand proper citation and attribution of authorship?
What happens to science and other scientists in the case of failure?
3. Describe some criteria that are appropriate for considering someone an author. Name
some that are inappropriate.
4. What social and institutional pressures might be encouraging fraud, and how can we
help to avoid or overcome them?
5. What must the absolute minimum activity for authorship be? How should co-authors
determine ordering of authorship and whether one should be an author on a particular
paper?
6. How might co-authors resolve issues of authorship best and at what stage of the
authoring process?
7. What is the ethical problem with “self-plagiarism” and how best to correct it?
8. What counts as “intellectual property” and what does not? What distinguishes
inventions from discoveries?
56 3 Ethics in Scientific Research

9. How much human intervention is necessary to turn something into intellectual

property?
10. How do copyrights affect the progress of science, and how can we better accommodate
science and maintain our interest in rewarding authors?
11. What is a conflict of interest? Which interests may collide rather than cooperate? What
is the proper first interest of a scientist?
12. How has modern science exacerbated the possibility and effects of conflicts of interest?
How might we try to alleviate them again?
13. Describe how autonomy and dignity are related principles, and what ethical theories
are involved in their understanding and application.
14. Consider and describe difference between paternalism, autonomy, and care ethics.
15. Which types of biases are blinding and randomization meant to address? What is the
role of the ethics committee in reviewing blinding and randomization in a proposed
protocol?
16. Who serves whom: do scientists serve society, or does society serve scientists? What
depends upon the nature of this relationship?
17. How can scientists best serve society and must they do so through direct means, or is
the general accumulation of knowledge over time sufficient?
18. How can we best protect against the influence of political or other ideologies upon the
work of science and scientists? What role do scientists play in preventing it, and what
role does law and regulation play?

Further Reading

Annas GJ, Grodin MA (1992) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code Human rights in human
experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
D’Angelo J (2012) Ethics in science ethical misconduct in scientific research. CRC Press Taylor &
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL
Fienberg SE, Martin ME, Straf ML (eds) (1985) Sharing research data. National Academies,
Washington, DC
Gross PR, Levitt N (1997) Higher superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science. JHU
Press, Baltimore, MD
Hamington M (2004) Embodied care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and feminist ethics.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL
Hursthouse R (1999) On virtue ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kaczor C (2006) The edge of life: human dignity and contemporary bioethics, vol 85. Springer,
Dordrecht
Kant I (1997) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (1785). In: Kant I (ed) Practical philosophy,
vol 80. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Koepsell D (2017) Scientific integrity and research ethics: an approach from the ethos of science.
Springer International Publishing AG, Cham
Koepsell DR (2003) The ontology of cyberspace: philosophy, law, and the future of intellectual
property. Open Court Publishing, Chicago, IL
Further Reading 57

May C, Sell SK (2006) Intellectual property rights: a critical history. Lynne Rienner Publishers,
Boulder, CO
Newton RG (1997) The truth of science: physical theories and reality. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Rai AK (1999) Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science.
Northwest Univ Law Rev 94:77
Rodwin MA (1993) Medicine, money, and morals: physician’s conflicts of interest. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York, NY
Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (2004) Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice. Wiley,
New York, NY
Schoen RA, Mogee ME, Wallerstein MB (1993) Global dimensions of intellectual property rights in
science and technology. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Taylor JS (2010) Practical autonomy and bioethics. Routledge, New York, NY
Timmermann C (2013) Life sciences, intellectual property regimes and global justice (excerpt).
Dissertation,. Wageningen University
Weindling P (2004) Nazi medicine and the Nuremberg trials: from medical war crimes to informed
consent. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY
Ziman J (2002) Real science: what it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press, London
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity
4

Overview

As per Wikiversity, intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving,

characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of
different ways including:

• Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may
contradict one’s hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading
impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is
avoided.

We have a moral duty to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share
ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition,
analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she,
knowing the truth, states that truth. For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all
a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a
range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
Research integrity may be defined as active adherence to the ethical principles and
professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. By active adher-
ence we mean adoption of the principles and practices as a personal credo, not simply
accepting them as impositions by rule makers. By ethical principles we mean honesty, the
golden rule, trustworthiness, and high regard for the scientific record. Integrity
characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 59

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_4
60 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

institutions, it is a matter of creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by

embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institu-
tional practices. For individuals research integrity is an aspect of moral character and
experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal
responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible
research conduct. The good practices of research integrity include:

• Intellectual honesty and fairness in proposing, performing, and reporting research;

• Accuracy and fairness in representing contributions to research proposals and reports;
• Proficiency and fairness in peer review;
• Collegiality in scientific interactions, communications, and sharing of resources;
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest;
• Protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;
• Humane care of animals in the conduct of research;
• Adherence to the mutual responsibilities of mentors and trainees

Engaging a listener’s trust imposes moral demands upon a presenter in respect of truth-
telling and completeness. An agent lies by an utterance that satisfies what are herein defined
as signal and mendacity conditions; an agent deceives when, in satisfaction of those
conditions, the agent’s utterances contribute to a false belief or thwart a true one. We can
refer to scientific as well as all other scholarly research collectively as scholarship and to
practitioners as scholars. It can be taken as given the predicates true and false as the
available truth values of an utterance, which, following Quine, is an event in which a
sentence token is uttered. When used to present information, not only prose and speech, but
graphs, photographs, and other means of expression may convey sentence tokens. On this
understanding, an utterance occurs in the case of such demonstrative acts as that of a
biologist who once painted mice so that they would appear the color predicted by his
hypothesis. A listener is anyone, including a reader or viewer, to whom an utterance is
uttered. A truth is a true utterance, a falsity or falsehood a false one. For the foregoing terms
carry no moral significance, but they do pose philosophical problems. Sometimes it is said
that scholarship is the pursuit of truth. Paul Benacerraf remarked, “Where truth lies, we
may never know, but that it lies is beyond doubt.” We take truth telling to denote veridical
speech, or the issuing of true utterances vis-à-vis false utterances. Only in assertions is a
truthful agent obliged to avoid uttering a falsehood. A truthful agent may write fiction, may
hold forth as a wag or raconteur. Even in assertions, a truthful agent need not always be
accurate. In the sense that we may have defined, one truthfully asserts a falsehood if one
believes one’s assertion true.
While science encourages vigorous defense of one’s ideas and work, ultimately research
integrity means examining the data with objectivity and being guided by the results rather
than by preconceived notions. Professionalism in science denotes a pattern of behavior
identified with scientific integrity that in turn provides certain privileges. Like other
professionals, scientists are expected to behave with intellectual honesty and excellence
4 Overview 61

in thinking and doing. In many respects they perform their professional activities as a
monopoly, licensed by society similar to doctors, nurses, lawyers, hairdressers,
accountants, and real estate brokers. Besides providing their expertise, professionals are
supposed to behave collegially and teach the skills to others, and put society’s needs first in
their professional activity. In response, society gives them a great deal of autonomy in
conducting their professional lives. With scientists, that means selection of one’s own
research problems and methods of procedure. They also are given the responsibilities to
allocate funding, and review of their output in publications. Like other professions they are
given responsibility for discipline in the event of poor performance or malfeasance. When
self-regulation fails to sustain honesty and high quality, society imposes rules and laws to
maintain its interests in professional quality. The main elements of professionalism are:

• Intellectual honesty;
• Excellence in thinking and doing;
• Collegiality and openness;
• Autonomy and responsibility;
• Self-regulation.

The following practical elements are responsible for research conduct:

• Conducting and reporting research;

• Role of the hypothesis;
• Critical nature of experimental design;
• The tentativeness of conclusions;
• Skepticism and humility tempered with conviction;
• Dealing with surprises serendipity communicating with colleagues;
• Communicating with the community-media.

The following are the social responsibilities of scientists/researchers as an oath (Kent):

• Is it appropriate to consider the broader consequences of the pursuit of a scientific

question?
• I just make discoveries about nature; others use my discoveries for better or worse.
• I must consider the predictable consequences of my research and decide in advance if I
will create serious ethical problems as a result of its outcomes.
• It matters not that others might discover what I avoid seeking because of its
consequences. I do not have to contribute to the misfortune of humanity in my research.
• The true consequences of a research effort are impossible to predict and it is the height of
arrogance not to pursue a promising avenue of science just because of qualms about its
misuse.
• How do I design and interpret my work not to bias the conclusions?
62 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

• Do scientists have the responsibility to make every effort to enter their work into the
scientific record whether it is positive or negative?

Integrity in research is essential for maintaining scientific excellence and for keeping the
public’s trust. Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in
which they work. The concept of integrity in research cannot, however, be reduced to a
one-line definition. For a scientist, integrity embodies above all the individual’s commit-
ment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility. It is an aspect of moral character
and experience. For an institution, it is a commitment to creating an environment that
promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and
lawfulness and then assessing whether researchers and administrators perceive that an
environment with high levels of integrity has been created.

Environment and Bases of Research Integrity

The research environment changes continually, and these changes influence the culture and
conduct of research. As with any system being scientifically examined, the research
environment itself contains variables and constants. The most unpredictable and influential
variable is the individual scientist. The human contribution to the research environment is
greatly shaped by each individual’s professional integrity, which in turn is influenced by
that individual’s educational background and cultural and ethical upbringing and the
resulting values and attitudes that contribute to identity formation, unique personality
traits, and ethical decision-making abilities. Institutions seeking to create an environment
that promotes responsible conduct by individual scientists and that fosters integrity must
establish and continuously monitor structures, processes, policies, and procedures. Each
individual researcher brings unique qualities to the research environment, the constants
must come from the environment itself. Research institutions should consistently and
effectively provide training and education, policies and procedures, and tools and support
systems. Institutional expectations should be unambiguous, and the consequences of one’s
conduct should be clear. The bases of research integrity are as under:

• Individual Level (the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment
to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of
practices that characterize the responsible conduct of research) includes:
– intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
– accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and reports;
– fairness in peer review;
– collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of
resources;
– transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest;
– protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;
4 Promoting Integrity in Research 63

– humane care of animals in the conduct of research;

– adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and their research
teams.
• Institutional Level (institutions seeking to create an environment that promotes respon-
sible conduct by individual scientists and that fosters integrity must establish and
continuously monitor structures, processes, policies, and procedures) that:
– provides leadership in support of responsible conduct of research;
– encourages respect for everyone involved in the research enterprise;
– promotes productive interactions between trainees and mentors;
– advocates adherence to the rules regarding all aspects of the conduct of research,
especially research involving human participants and animals;
– anticipates, reveals, and manages individual and institutional conflicts of interest;
– arranges timely and thorough inquiries and investigations of allegations of scientific
misconduct and apply appropriate administrative sanctions;
– offers educational opportunities pertaining to integrity in the conduct of research;
– monitors and evaluates the institutional environment supporting integrity in the
conduct of research and uses this knowledge for continuous quality improvement.

Promoting Integrity in Research

Teaching the responsible conduct of research presents a special challenge in the

organizations because it requires a synthesis of ethics and science. The provision of
instruction in the responsible conduct of research need not to be driven by federal
mandates, for it derives from a premise fundamental to doing science: the responsible
conduct of research is not distinct from research; competency in research encompasses the
responsible conduct of that research and the capacity for ethical decision-making. Attention
also needs to focus on how education in the responsible conduct of research is conducted so
far. Integrity in the research should be developed within the context of other aspects of an
overall research education program. The committee may believe that doing so will be the
best way to accomplish the following five objectives for graduate students and postdoctoral
fellows (Dell 2012):

• emphasize responsible conduct as central to conducting good science;

• maximize the likelihood that education in the responsible conduct of research influences
individuals and institutions rather than merely satisfies an item on a checkoff list
necessary for that institution;
• impart essential rules and guidelines regarding responsible conduct of research in one’s
discipline and profession in context;
64 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

• enable participants in the educational programs to develop abilities that will help them to
effectively manage concerns related to responsible conduct of research that cannot be
anticipated but that are certain to arise in the future;
• verify that the first four objectives have been met.

When scientists and ethicists collaborate in the design and implementation of learning
experiences, scholars come to appreciate the complexity of problems to arise in the practice
of science. When instruction requires the application of norms and the ethical theories that
support them, values and regulations to the practical problems that arise in the day-to-day
practice of science, learning to last and to transfer to new situations. The model for
providing instruction in the responsible conduct of research is taken from traditional
programs for scholars what is necessary for their performance as researchers:

• start as soon as the researchers arrive;

• make the instruction in this area part of everything they do, placing the education in the
context of the research instead of making it a separate entity;
• move from the simple to the complex;
• assess student competency;
• communicating well;
• obtaining employment and research grants;
• excelling in teaching and mentoring;
• engaging in ethical decision-making;
• behaving responsibly.

Funding agencies should establish research grant programs to identify, measure, and
assess those factors that influence integrity in research:

• The Office of Research Integrity should broaden its current support for research to fund
studies that explore new approaches to monitoring and evaluating the integrity of the
research environment.
• Public funding/government agencies and foundations that fund extramural research
should include in their funding portfolios support for research designed to assess the
factors that promote integrity in research across different disciplines and institutions.
• Public funding/government agencies and foundations should fund research designed to
assess the relationship between various elements of the research environment and
integrity in research, including similarities and differences across disciplines and
institutions.

Each research institution must develop and implement a comprehensive program

designed to promote integrity in research, using multiple approaches adapted to the specific
environments within each institution:
4 Evaluation by Self-Assessment 65

• It is incumbent upon institutions to take a more active role in the development and
maintenance of climate and culture within their research environments that promote and
support the responsible conduct of research.
• The factors within the research environment that institutions should consider in the
development and maintenance of such a culture and climate include, but are not limited
to, supportive leadership, appropriate policies and procedures, effective educational
programs, and evaluation of any efforts devoted to fostering integrity in research.
• Federal research agencies and private foundations should work with educational
institutions to develop funding mechanisms to provide support for programs that
promote the responsible conduct of research.

Institutions should implement effective educational programs that enhance the respon-
sible conduct of research:

• Educational programs should be built around the development of abilities that give rise
to the responsible conduct of research.
• The design of programs should be guided by basic principles of adult learning.
• Integrity in research should be developed within the context of other relevant aspects of
an overall research education program, and instruction in the responsible conduct of
research should be provided by faculty who are actively engaged in research related to
that of the trainees.

Evaluation by Self-Assessment

This may be an effective tool which can optimize the institutional approach to fostering the
responsible conduct of research. It might be too critical that organizations simultaneously
implement processes for evaluating their efforts, establishing a basis for organizational
learning and continuous quality improvement. Evaluation could be approached in a number
of variety of ways. One of them is to rely on external evaluators to determine compliance
with regulatory controls, while the other is to rely on a system of performance-based
assessments that are initiated and implemented internally. Such type of assessments can
also be used to meet the accountability requirements of outside funding agencies and
government sources. Peer reviewers may be used in institutional self-assessment processes;
assessments done by peer reviewers may or may not be associated with accreditation by
external organizations/agencies. If institutional cultures have to be changed, then both the
call for change and its implementation must come from research institutions. An important
next step might be for universities and university associations, working together, to
acknowledge the importance of conducting research and research education in an environ-
ment of high integrity and developing an evaluative process based on self-study.
Gaining the methodological expertise needed to carry out research on the relationship
between the research environment and integrity in research will require the development
66 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

and validation of measures, particularly indicators that are observable and quantifiable
within the research environment. Research institutions should evaluate and enhance the
integrity of their research environments using the following process of self-assessment and
external peer review in an ongoing process that provides input for continuous quality
improvement:

• The importance of external peer review of the institution cannot be overemphasized.

Such a process will help to ensure the credibility of the review, provide suggestions for
improvement of the process, and increase public confidence in the research enterprise.
• Effective self-assessment will require the development and validation of evaluation
instruments and measures.
• Assessment of integrity and the factors associated with it should occur at all levels
within the institution (i.e., at the institutional level, the research unit level, and the
individual level).
• At the individual level, assessment of integrity should be an integral part of regular
performance appraisals.
• As with any new program, a phase-in or pilot testing period is to be expected, and the
assessment and accreditation process should be continually modified as needed based on
results of these early actions.

Institutional self-assessment of integrity in research should be part of existing accredi-

tation processes whenever possible in the following way:

• Accreditation provides established procedures, including external peer review, that can
be modified to incorporate assessments of efforts related to integrity in research within
an institution.
• Entities that currently accredit educational programs at institutions where research is
conducted would be the bodies to also review the process and the outcome data from the
institution’s self-assessment of its climate for promotion of integrity in research.
• Government research agencies and private foundations should support efforts to inte-
grate self-assessment of the research environment into existing accreditation processes,
and they also should fund research into the effectiveness of such efforts.

Integrity of the Individual Research

The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has
contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure
only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values
associated with ethical scientific conduct. Government oversight of scientific research is
important, but such oversight, in the form of administrative rules, typically stipulates what
4 Integrity of the Individual Research 67

cannot be done. The key practices that pertain to the responsible conduct of research by
individual scientists parting the following sections to elucidate the practices:

• Intellectual Honesty in Proposing, Performing, and Reporting Research: It should

be expected that the researchers should present proposals and data honestly and com-
municate their best understanding of the work in writing and verbally before the
committee. The descriptions of an individual’s work are found in such communications
that frequently present selected data from the work organized into frameworks that
emphasize conceptual understanding rather than the chronology of the discovery pro-
cess. Clear and accurate research records must underlie these descriptions, likewise.
Researchers must be advocated for their research concluding remarks in the face of
collegial skepticism and must acknowledge errors.
• Accuracy in Representing Contributions to Research Proposals and Reports: To
grab accuracy, it is expected that the researchers should not report the work of others as
if it is of their own. This might be treated plagiarism. They should be honest with respect
to the contributions of colleagues and collaborators. All decisions regarding authorship
should be the best anticipated at the outset of projects rather than at their completion. In
all types of publications, it should be possible in principle to specify each author’s
contribution to the entire work. It may also be expected that the researchers must
honestly acknowledge the precedents on which their research is based.
• Fairness in Peer Review: The researchers must agree to be peer reviewers only when
they can be impartial in their final judgments/findings and only when have revealed their
conflicts of interest. The function of peer review is to maintain the excellence of
published scientific work and it ensures a merit-based system of support for research.
The peer-review system provides a delicate balance in research because the best
reviewers are precisely those individuals who have the most to gain from insider
information. They are doing or have done similar work and they will be unable to strike
from their memory and thoughts/findings what they learn through the review process.
• Collegiality in Scientific Interactions, Including Communications and Sharing of
Resources: This process requires that the investigators report research findings/results
to the scientific community in a full, open, and timely fashion. It should also be
recognized that the scientific community is highly competitive and well-being. The
investigator who first reports new results and important findings gets credited with that
particular discovery. Intellectual property provisions and secrecy allow for patents and
licensure and encourage private investment in the research. For publicly funded
research, a degree of discretion may permit a research group to move ahead more
efficiently. An investigator who delays reporting important new findings/results risks
having others publish similar results first and receiving very diminished/less recognition
for that discovery.
• Transparency in Conflicts of Interest or Potential Conflicts of Interest: It takes place
when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that might lead to a
personal advantage, in actuality or appearance, compromise the integrity of the research.
68 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

Most of the scientific advances that reach the public involve extensive collaboration
between academia and industry research. This type of collaborations involves consult-
ing and advisory services as well as the development of specific inventions, and they can
result in direct financial benefit for both individuals and institutions. Conflicts of interest
reside in a situation itself, not in any behavior of members of an entire research team.
Thus, researchers should disclose all conflicts of interest to their institutions so that the
researchers and their work can be properly managed. They should be directed voluntar-
ily to disclose conflicts of interest in all publications and presentations resulting from the
research findings. The committee should believe that scientific institutions, universities,
research organizations, professional societies, and professional and lay journals should
embrace disclosure of conflicts of interest as an essential component of integrity in the
research they have conducted.
• Protection of Human Subjects in the Conduct of Research: The elements in human
subjects included in a framework pertain to the quality and importance of the science, its
risks and benefits, fairness in the selection of subjects, the voluntary participation, and
informed consent of subjects. To ensure the conformance of research efforts with these
goals, research institutions carry out extensive research subject protection programs. To
be successful in the objective, such programs require high-level of functioning institu-
tional review boards, knowledgeable investigators, ongoing performance assessment
through monitoring feedback, and educational programs.
• Humane Care of Animals in the Conduct of Research: Researchers must have a
responsibility to engage in the humane care of animals in the conduct of research during
experimentations. Needs for animals in any particular protocol, ensuring that research
animal’s basic needs for life are met prior to research, and carefully considering the
benefits of the research to society or to animals versus the likely harms to any animals
included as part of the research protocol during research evaluations. To minimize
animal pain, suffering, and distress should be implemented. Research protocols involv-
ing animals must be reviewed and approved by properly constituted bodies/councils, as
required by law (Animal Welfare Act of 1966, amended 1970, 1990, and 2001).
• Adherence to the Mutual Responsibilities Between Investigators and Entire
Research Teams: The research team should include other faculty members, colleagues,
coinvestigators, trainees (including undergraduate students, graduate and medical
students, postdoctoral fellows), and employed staff (including technicians, statisticians,
study coordinators, nurses, animal handlers, and administrative personnel). The head/
monitor of the research team should encourage all members of the team to achieve their
research goals. The interpersonal interactions must reflect mutual respect among
members of the team, fairness in assignment of responsibilities and efforts, open and
frequent communication, and accountability of the work order section.
• Mentoring and Advising: Mentor may be used interchangeably with faculty adviser.
The research committee believes that mentor should be the dominant and role of the
laboratory director or research advisor in regard to his/her trainee. With regard to this
mentor–trainee relationship, responsibilities include a commitment to continuous
4 Support of Integrity by the Research Institution 69

education and guidance of trainees, appropriate delegation of responsibility, regular

review and constructive appraisal of trainees, fair attribution of accomplishment and
authorship, and career guidance, as well as help in creating opportunities for employ-
ment and funding. For the trainees, essential elements include respect for the mentor,
loyalty to the research group, a strong commitment to science and technology, dedica-
tion to the project assigned, careful and lawful performance of experiments, precise and
complete record-keeping, accurate reporting of results, and a commitment to oral and
written presentations and publications.

Support of Integrity by the Research Institution

The individual research investigator and the laboratory or research unit carry out their
functions in institutions/organizations that are responsible for the management and support
of the research carried out within their domains. The institutions/organization/research
units are regulated by governmental and other bodies that impose rules/legal entities and
responsibilities. The vigor, resources, and attitudes with which institutions/organizations
carry out their responsibilities to influence investigator’s commitment and adherence to
responsible research practices are the following:

• To Provide Leadership in Support of Responsible Conduct of Research: The

observed actions of institutions in problem situations communicate more strongly
about responsible conduct as do any policies or programs. Institutional leaders (chan-
cellor, president, dean, CEO, etc.) set the tone for the institutions with their own actions.
Research leaders are expected to set an example not only in their own research practices
but also in their willingness to engage in dialogue about ethical questions that arise in the
population.
• To Encourage Respect for Everyone Involved in the Research Enterprise: The
environment that fosters competence and honest interactions among all participants in
the investigative process to support the integrity of research should be well off to carry
out the research. Institutions/organizations may have many legally mandated policies to
foster mutual respect and trust (i.e., policies concerning harassment, occupational health
and safety, fair employment practices, pay and benefits, protection of research subjects,
exposure to ionizing radiation, and due process regarding allegations of research
misconduct). Within the research institution, there might be multiple smaller units
(i.e., departments, divisions within a department, research groups within a division).
Within these institutional subunits, there will always be power differences between
members of the group.
• To Promote Productive Interactions Between Trainees and Mentors: A mentor
must consider the student’s core research interests and needs in preference to his/her
own. Trainees and mentors are interdependent at times and competitiveness. Most of the
trainees depend on their mentors for scientific education and training, for support, for
70 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

career guidance and references. Mentors tend to be role models as well for their
researchers. Mentors depend on trainees for performing work and bringing fresh ideas
and approaches to the entire research group. They can enhance the mentor’s reputation
as a teacher and as an investigator. The institutions should establish programs that foster
productive relations between mentors and trainees, including training in mentoring and
advising for faculty.
• To Advocate Adherence to the Rules Regarding all Aspects of the Conduct of
Research, Especially Research Involving Human Subjects and Animals: Effective
advocacy by an institution of the rules involving the use of human subjects and animals
in research involves much more than posting the relevant federal, state, and local
regulations to provide damage control and formal sanctions when irregularities are
discovered. At all levels of the institution/organization, including the level of the
dean, department chair, research group leader, and individual research group member,
regular affirmation of the guiding principles underlying the rules is essential.
• To Anticipate, Reveal, and Manage Individual and Institutional Conflicts of Inter-
est: Research institutions/organizations must conduct their work in a manner to earn
public trust. To do so, they must be sensitive to any conflict of interest that might affect
or appear to affect their decisions and behavior in such a manner that could compromise
their roles as trustworthy sources of information and policy advice or their obligations to
ensure the protection of human research subjects.
• To Arrange Timely and Thorough Inquiries and Investigations of Allegations of
Scientific Misconduct and Apply Appropriate Sanctions: Every institution/organiza-
tion that receives government fund for research and related activities must have in place
policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct. Their
effectiveness depends on investigation of allegations of misconduct with vigor and
fairness. The institution should embrace the notion that it is important to the quality
and integrity of science that individuals report possible research misconduct.
• To Offer Educational Opportunities Pertaining to Integrity in the Conduct of
Research: These offerings must encourage open discussion of the values at stake and
the ethical standards to promote responsible research practices. The core objective of
such education is to increase participant’s knowledge and sensitivity to the issues
associated with integrity in research and to improve their ability to make ethical choices.
It should give them an appreciation for the diversity of views that may be brought to bear
on issues, inform them about the institutional rules and government regulations that
apply to research, and instill in them the scientific community’s expectations regarding
proper research practice.
• To Monitor and Evaluate the Institutional Environment Supporting Integrity in
the Conduct of Research and Use this Knowledge for Continuous Quality Improve-
ment: This requires diligent oversight by institutional management to ensure that the
practices associated with integrity described above are carried out. It also requires
examination of the policy-making process, the policies themselves, their execution,
and the degree to which they are understood and adhered to by those affected.
4 Research Environment and Its Impact on Research Integrity 71

The concept of integrity in research cannot be reduced to a one-line definition. For a

scientist, integrity embodies above all the individual’s commitment to intellectual honesty
and personal responsibility. It is an aspect of moral character and experience. For an
institution/organization, it is a commitment to creating an environment to promote respon-
sible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness and
then assessing whether researchers and administrators perceive that an environment with
high levels of integrity has been created.

Research Environment and Its Impact on Research Integrity

Scientific basis to describe and define the research environment and its impact on integrity
in research, it becomes necessary to articulate a conceptual framework that delineates the
various components of the environment and the relationships between the factors to
conduct a research. The research monitoring committee proposes such a framework
based on an open-systems model, to describe social organizations and the interrelationships
between and among the project component. This model offers a general framework to be
used to guide the specification of factors both internal and external to the research
organization that is relevant to understand integrity in research. Relevant literature may
be found in the areas of organizational behavior/structure and processes, ethical cultures
and climates, moral development, adult learning and educational practices and professional
socialization. The open-systems model depicts the various elements of a social organiza-
tion, these elements include the external environment, the organizational divisions or
departments, the individuals comprising those divisions and the reciprocal influences
between the various organizational elements and the external environment. The
assumptions of the open-systems model and its elements are as follows:

• External conditions influence the inputs into an organization to affect the reception of
outputs from an organization’s activities and directly affect an organization’s internal
operations.
• All system elements and their subcomponent parts are interrelated to influence one
another in a multidirectional fashion.
• Any element or part of an organization can be viewed as a system in itself.
• There is a feedback loop whereby the system outputs and outcomes are used as system
inputs over time with continual change occurring in the organization.
• Organizational structure and processes are in part determined by the external environ-
ment and are influenced by the dynamics between and among organizational members.
• An organization’s success depends on its ability to adapt to its environment, to tie
individual members to their roles and responsibilities within the organization, to conduct
its processes, and to manage its operations over time.
72 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

An organization’s internal environment consists of a number of key elements, the inputs

provide resources for organizational functions while the organizational structure and
processes define an organization’s setup and operations, the outputs and outcomes as the
results of an organization’s activities. Organizations are compartmentalized into various
subunits, including work groups or divisions, along with other defined sets of organiza-
tional activities and responsibilities (e.g., programs that educate members about the
responsible conduct of research, Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], and mechanisms
for disclosing and managing conflicts of interest). The research funding that an organiza-
tion receives is distributed to research groups or teams and to individual scientists. Funding
levels may increase and decrease over the years, both for the organization as a whole and
for individual research groups. The impacts that the level of funding and the competition
over funding have on the responsible conduct of research are not clearly understood. The
human resources available to a research organization are also important to the analysis of
integrity in research. The background characteristics of scientists coming into a research
organization influence its structure and processes as well as its overall culture and climate,
and these factors, in turn, influence the responsible conduct of research by individual
scientists. Scientists (whether they are trainees, junior researchers, or senior researchers)
entering into a research organization will have competing professional demands (research,
teaching, practice, and professional service), and there are likely to be conflicting
commitments. Scientists/researchers enter into an organization with various educational
and cultural backgrounds. They have different conceptions of the collaborative and com-
petitive roles of the scientist, different abilities to interpret the moral dimensions of
problems, and different capacities to reason about and effectively resolve ethical problems.
The formalization of policies and practices to support the responsible conduct of the
research is important in the analysis of research environments and their influence on
integrity in research process. A research organization should have explicit procedures
and systems in place to fairly:

• monitor and evaluate research performance,

• distribute the resources needed for research,
• reward achievement.

Research has shown that strongly implemented and embedded ethical codes of conduct
within organizations are associated with ethical behavior in the workplace by:

• involving students in educating their peers and resolving academic dishonesty

allegations,
• treating academic integrity as a moral issue,
• promoting enhanced student-faculty contact and better teaching.

Viewing the research environment as an open-systems model, which is used in general

organizational and administrative theory, makes it possible to hypothesize how various
4 Fostering Integrity in Research 73

components affect integrity in research. Inputs of funds and other resources can influence
behavior both positively and negatively. The organizational structure and processes that
typify the mission and activities of an organization can either promote or detract from the
responsible conduct of research. The culture and climate that are unique to an organization
both promote and perpetuate certain behaviors. Finally, the external environment, over
which individuals and, often, institutions have little control, can affect behavior and alter
institutional integrity for better or for worse.

Fostering Integrity in Research

Most of the research organizations rely on a variety of methods for promoting integrity in
the research. They establish organizational components to comply with regulations
imposed by an external environment. They offer educational programs to teach the
elements of the responsible conduct of research and they implement policies and
procedures that delineate the normative practices of responsible research and establish
criteria for rewards and recognition, and they develop processes to evaluate and enforce
institutional behavior. To establish a basis for organizational learning and continuous
quality improvement, organizations should simultaneously implement processes for
evaluating their efforts to foster responsible conduct of research. Evaluation can be
approached in a variety of ways including, to rely on external evaluators to determine
compliance with regulatory controls and to rely on a system of performance-based
assessments that are initiated and implemented internally. A regulatory framework requires
a rule-making process that may be governed by legislative or administrative actions.
Common components of regulatory frameworks include the specification of certain
procedures and reporting requirements, the collection of data, and the preparation of reports
of compliance practices. The regulatory approach also involves a governmental unit that
maintains oversight of the compliance and reporting procedures, investigates complaints
about rule violations, and offers technical assistance in rule-making and implementation of
regulations. Several models of regulatory frameworks for research that could be adapted to
the oversight of integrity in research already exist. These models include the regulatory
frameworks for the oversight of the protection of human research subjects, the evaluation
of misconduct in science, the use of animals in research, and the handling of toxic or
radioactive research materials.
A regulatory approach to fostering integrity in research is consistent with other
governmental efforts to encourage the use of commonly accepted practices and to discour-
age irresponsible behavior in the research environment. Researchers and institutional
officials are familiar with compliance requirements and often participate in the preparation
of rulemaking procedures. A regulatory approach fostering integrity in research also has
some limitations. Regulations emphasize the areas of common agreement and can reduce
important concerns to rules and procedures. It is difficult or impossible for regulations
alone to foster an understanding of the critical issues involved, and the required procedures
74 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

are not always related to the desired outcomes. The adoption of new regulations and the
creation of institutional and governmental oversight offices increase the cost of doing
science and add to the administrative costs of research centers without necessarily creating
a commensurate benefit. In addition, once regulations are adopted, they are difficult to
change.
A performance-based model for the evaluation of organizational efforts to foster
integrity in the research environment offers selected goals and benchmarks that can be
used as criteria to assess the success of efforts. A benchmark is a standard or point of
reference used in measuring and/or judging quality or value. Benchmarking is the process
of continuously comparing and measuring an organization’s performance, practices,
policies, and philosophies against leading, high-performing organizations anywhere in
the world to gain information that will help the organization take action to improve its
performance. These goals and benchmarks are generally linked to rewards, incentives, and,
at times, penalties for specific types of behavior. This model also requires institutions/
universities to implement these goals through a series of actions and assessment strategies
include the following:

• posting the statement (including selected criteria related to personnel actions, such as
recruitment offers and hiring and promotion policies and practices) in public places
throughout the research institution;
• creating a bonus plan or award system to reward exceptional behavior;
• providing mentorship opportunities for senior and junior faculty and investigators that
emphasize the importance of learning about the responsible conduct of research;
• publicizing and possibly sanctioning actions that are inconsistent with the institution’s
research mission.

Assessment strategies may focus on the development of mission statements and

benchmark tools alone, or they may include an analysis of the ways that institutional
officials use such tools to influence faculty adherence to responsible research practices.
Assessment efforts can also be used to review compliance strategies (including the
compliance of faculty and research staff), student surveys, and sponsor evaluations, as
well as to analyze rewards, incentives, and penalties. Performance-based systems are
increasingly common in diverse institutional settings, including health care (with the new
emphasis on quality), the transportation sector, and various sectors of the manufacturing
and service industries. Conceptual frameworks, measurement tools, and institutional case
studies exist that can provide the foundation for the development of such a system in the
area of integrity in research.
Performance-based systems require a considerable amount of institutional commitment
and involvement. Institutional officers need to exercise leadership and authority in the
development of a mission statement and performance goals, as well as in the selection of
benchmarks to be used to guide and evaluate behavior. The adoption of performance-based
goals can be divisive and controversial if faculty do not share common norms and
4 Promoting Honesty in Research 75

aspirations, or if such goals lead to restrictions on the types of research that can be
conducted.
The complexities of balancing formal and informal approaches to fostering integrity in
research have led to efforts to have research institutions assess their own performances,
including the performances of their managements, faculty and research staff, in terms of
complying with stated standards, goals, and practices. Such self-assessments may include
evaluations of aspects of certification or institutional assurance of compliance with profes-
sional standards within a broader organizational context; this practice is frequently used in
the accreditation of professional schools and departments, as well as of educational
institutions. The strategy used in the self-assessment and assurance framework has multiple
distinct features. The internal assessment and accreditation process include the following
points:

• institutional self-study;
• a team visit;
• types of accreditation actions;
• periodic review reports;
• institutional profile (annual) reports;
• candidacy and initial accreditation procedures;
• public information;
• use of technology (i.e., electronic submission of report materials);
• training of evaluators and the institution’s departmental chairs.

Evaluations of activities within research institutions occur in diverse forms and are
influenced by different approaches that may consist of voluntary or mandatory elements
and that may rely upon professional or volunteer reviewers. The committee has not found
research evidence that suggests that any particular approach produces significant
differences in measurable outcomes.

Promoting Honesty in Research

Education in the responsible conduct of research should be no less integral to the education
of a researcher. This principle was adopted by the National Academy of Sciences in 1992
and stated: “Scientists and research institutes should integrate into their curricula educa-
tional programs that foster faculty and student awareness of concerns related to the
integrity of the research process.” Educational abilities are complex combinations of
motivations, dispositions, attitudes, values, knowledge of concepts and procedures, skills,
strategies, and behaviors. These combinations are dynamic and interactive, and they can be
acquired and developed through both education and experience. When National Academy
of Science committee advocates the promotion of integrity in the institutional research
environment, it is advocating the creation of a climate in the institution, the department, and
76 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

the research group that promotes integrity in research. The committee recommends a model
for education in the responsible conduct of research that includes the following principles:

• The educational program should be built around the development of abilities that
give rise to responsible conduct. These include the ability to
– identify the ethical dimensions of situations that arise in the research setting and the
laws, regulations, and guidelines governing one’s field that apply to those situations
(ethical sensitivity);
– develop defensible rationales for a choice of action (ethical reasoning);
– integrate the values of one’s professional discipline with one’s own personal values
(identity formation) and appropriately prioritize professional values over personal
ones (showing moral motivation and commitment);
– perform with integrity the complex tasks (communicate ideas and results, obtain
funding, teach, and supervise) that are essential to one’s career (survival skills).
• The program should be designed in accordance with basic principles of adult
learning. Education in the responsible conduct of research should
– be provided within the context of the overall education program, including adviser–
trainee interactions, the core discipline-specific curriculum, and explicit education in
professional skills;
– take place over an extended period of time, preferably the entire educational pro-
gram, and include review, practice, and assessment;
– involve active learning, including interactions among the instructors and the trainees.
• The instruction should be provided as much as possible by faculty who are actively
engaged in research related to that of the trainees.
Educational efforts on the responsible conduct of research should be designed to
reach everyone involved in scientific research. Without formal training for all existing
researchers and an instructional program for new staff and researchers, an institution
will not be able to develop a consistent message to trainees and students. To create a
learning environment that fosters integrity in research, educators need to consider what
is known about the development of integrity in other professional contexts and what that
information suggests about the abilities that enable responsible conduct. Research also
demonstrates that individuals participating in a formal educational program and sea-
soned professionals can be influenced by an educational environment that provides
opportunities and abilities. The implication to teach the abilities derived from these
psychological processes in context have been proposed in the sections as follows.
• Interpreting the ethical dimensions of problems in the research setting: Research on
ethical sensitivity in professional settings indicates that
– ethical sensitivity can be reliably assessed;
– students and professionals vary in their sensitivities to ethical issues;
– ethical sensitivity can be enhanced through instruction;
– the sensitivity to issues is distinct from the ability to reason about issues.
4 Principles of Adult Learning 77

• Developing competence in reasoning About the Complex Problems that arise in the
Research Setting: The effects of ethics instruction on a professional’s moral reasoning
has been extensively concluded that
– a medical curriculum without an ethics curriculum tends not to enhance moral
reasoning;
– instruction can be effective, although not all interventions produce significant gains;
– the effects of at least some interventions can be attributed to an intervention based on
comparisons with control groups;
– strategies other than discussion of a dilemma can produce change;
– there is a relationship between reasoning and a range of indicators of physician
performance.
• Moral Motivation and Identity Formation: Moral motivation and commitment
involve prioritization of moral values over other personal values. People have many
values (i.e., values related to their careers, affectional relationships, aesthetic
preferences, institutional loyalties, hedonistic pleasures, and things that excite them).
• Developing Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Implementation Abilities Necessary
for Effective and Responsible Research Practice: A person may be sensitive to moral
issues, have good judgment, and prioritize moral values; but if he/she is lacking in moral
character and competence, he/she may wilt under pressure or fatigue, may not follow
through, and may be distracted or discouraged, and moral behavior will fail. This
component presupposes that one has set goals, has self-discipline and controls impulses,
and has the strength and skill to act in accord with one’s goals.

Principles of Adult Learning

There are six learning principles that should be considered when developing an educational
program on the responsible conduct of research as under:

• Education is best provided by individuals who have a deep understanding of their

subject matter and whose teaching reflects that they care about and value the material
being taught;
• Educational programs in responsible conduct of research should occur over an extended
period; indeed, they should occur throughout a trainee’s tenure at an institution;
• Active participation in problem-oriented learning is an important component of effective
educational programs;
• Programs will be more effective if educators help students assess their prior knowledge
and integrate new material with familiar ideas;
• Students should be encouraged to share their own experiences with others in the class;
• Instructional programs that attend to developmental differences and individual learning
preferences are more likely to be effective.
78 4 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

Review Questions

1. What is the basic difference between intellectual honesty and research integrity?
2. What are the parameters of good practices of research integrity?
3. Explain the main elements of professionalism in intellectual honesty.
4. Discuss the practical elements which are responsible for research conduct.
5. Explain briefly the environment and bases of research integrity.
6. The responsible conduct of research is not distinct from research. Explain this term.
7. What is necessary for the performance of a researcher?
8. What the institutions should evaluate and enhance the integrity of their research
environments?
9. What are the key practices that pertain to the responsible conduct of research by
individual?
10. Why government oversight of scientific research is important for research integrity?
11. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) Professional Quality in Research
(b) Bases of Research Integrity
(c) Promoting Integrity in Research
(d) Fostering Integrity in Research
(e) Integrity of the Individual Research
(f) Fairness in Peer Review
(g) Open-Systems Model
(h) Benchmarking in Research.

Further Reading

Banner JM Jr, Cannon HC (1997) The elements of teaching. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Bebeau MJ, Pimple KD, Muskavitch KMT, Borden SL, Smith DL (1995) Moral reasoning in
scientific research: cases for teaching and assessment. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM (1997) Women’s ways of knowing: the
development of self, voice and mind. Basic Books, New York, NY
Bulger RE, Heitman E, Reiser SJ (1993) The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences.
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
Burgess RG (2005) The ethics of educational research. Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc, London
D’Angelo J (2012) Ethics in science ethical misconduct in scientific research. CRC Press Taylor &
Francis Group, New York, NY
Guenin LM (2005) Intellectual honesty. Springer, New York
Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists: between ethical conduct and regulatory
compliance. SAGE Publications Ltd, New Delhi
Macrina FL (2014) Scientific integrity, text and cases in responsible conduct of research, 4th edn.
ASM Press, Washington, DC
Further Reading 79

McKeachie WJ, Gibbs G (1998) Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers, 10th edn. Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY
Penslar RL (1995) Research ethics: cases and materials. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN
Resnik DB (1998) The ethics of science: an introduction. Routledge, New York, NY
Rubenstein AH (2002) Integrity in scientific research. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC
Samantha L (2015) Elliott, perspectives on research integrity. ASM Press, Washington, DC
Taylor PC, Gilmer PJ, Tobin K (eds) (2002) Transforming undergraduate science teaching: social
constructivist perspectives. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, New York, NY
Scientific Misconduct
5

Overview

Scientific misconduct and fraud are prevailing problems in science and it threatens to
undermine integrity, credibility, and objectivity in genuine research. It also risks
undermining trust, among researchers and the general public. It becomes important to
consider the possible means of countering fraud and misconduct in the research. By
criminalization we meant the decision of making some action like a criminal offense for
which one may merit criminal punishment, such as fines, community service, or even
incarceration. From a philosophical point of view, the decision to criminalize or a particular
action stands in need of a moral justification. Criminal punishment, such as imprisonment,
involves either intentional harm or the intentional deprivation of some good, such as
liberty. It also has negative consequences for family members and those socially, economi-
cally, and emotionally dependent on the person who is being punished for scientific
misconduct in academic and research society. Scientific misconduct has been defined by
the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS, 1999) as:

fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that
are commonly accepted practices within the scientific community for proposing, conducting,
or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations
or judgments of data.

• Falsification is the changing or omission of research results/data to support claims,

hypotheses, other data, etc. Falsification can include the manipulation of research
instrumentation, materials, or processes. Manipulation of images or representations in
a manner that distorts the data or “reads too much between the lines” can also be
considered falsification.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 81

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_5
82 5 Scientific Misconduct

• Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data, observations, or

characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of data or running of experiments.
Fabrication can occur when “filling out” the rest of experiment runs. Claims about
results need to be made on complete datasets as normally assumed, where claims made
based on incomplete or assumed results are a form of fabrication.
• Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s work without attribution, passing it off as one’s
own. Text, figures, tables, and even ideas can be plagiarized. When a whole entity (e.g.,
an entire article, a figure, a table, or a dataset) is republished without attribution or
permission, there may be a copyright violation as well as ethical misconduct.

Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. Over the past few
decades, there has been found an apparent outbreak in scientists who behaving very badly.
One such case is that of Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel (1990), who fabricated
more than 50 influential studies, usually “finding” things that academic liberals wanted to
believe, including that dirty environments encouraged racism, that eating meat made
people selfish, and that power had a negative effect on morality of the people. Research
misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion. Scientific misconduct
is not a recent phenomenon simply tied to some decline of morality or increased competi-
tion for tenure and research funds. Accusations of scientific misconduct, sometimes well
supported, pepper the history of science, from the Greek natural philosophers onward. The
first formal discussion of scientific misconduct is Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the
Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. Babbage held Newton’s chair at
Cambridge and made major contributions to the development of computers (“difference
machines,” “analytical engines”) and to astronomy, mathematics, and many other fields.
He distinguished “several species of impositions that have been practiced in science
hoaxing, forging, trimming and cooking.”
Scientists guilty of misconduct have been found in many fields and at different levels in
the universities and research institutions. Their social and educational backgrounds vary.
They appear to be no systematic empirical studies of the characteristics of perpetrators of
scientific misconduct and no good evidence for any common characteristics. The detailed
guidelines suggested by National Academy of Science (2012) for the development of
institutional growth and to overcome scientific misconduct cover:

• conflict of interest—personal, professional, and financial;

• policies regarding human subjects, live vertebrate animal subjects in research, and safe
laboratory practices;
• mentor/mentee responsibilities and relationships;
• collaborative research, including collaborations with industry;
• peer review;
• data acquisition and laboratory tools management, sharing, and ownership;
• research misconduct and policies for handling misconduct;
• responsible authorship and publication;
5 Poor Practices vs. Misconduct 83

• the scientist as a responsible member of society, contemporary ethical issues in biomed-

ical research, and the environmental and societal impacts of scientific research.

Poor Practices vs. Misconduct

Errors in the scientific literature, and the poor reproducibility of research findings, may
likely occur for three reasons. Firstly, a small number of errors are just due to chance alone.
If 25 laboratories all perform the same experiment, the lab with anomalous positive result
might publish their findings, whereas the 24 other labs that did not make this observation
would not even submit their findings. Secondly, a much greater source of errors is those
that arise from sloppy research, with poor controls, lack of blinding, reagents that have not
been validated, etc. These are the “flags” that Begley (2013) refers to in his commentary.
Lastly, there are the errors that arise from deliberate falsification of fabrication of data.
These, together with plagiarism, are usually used to define “research misconduct,” and the
critical element is intent, i.e., that it was done in order to deceive. All research misconduct
shares the common features being both deliberate and dishonest, the seriousness varies
enormously, from the very minor, such as deliberately failing to cite competitors, to the
extremely serious, such as falsifying data that endangers the lives of human research
subjects. In 2010, the second World Conference on Research Integrity produced the
Singapore Statement on integrity and misconduct. It provides a concise description of
how researchers should behave, based on principles of honesty, accountability, fairness,
and good stewardship. Among 14 listed responsibilities, it cites the importance of reporting
findings fully, maintaining records, including as author all those and only those that meet
the criteria applicable to the research field, giving credit to those who have contributed but
are not authors, and declaring conflicts of interest. As per the statement of Cornfield
(2012):

The main motivations for misconduct are, at their base, either financial or reputational. As
fewer and fewer researchers are in tenured positions, and more and more rely on competitive
grants to fund both their salaries and their laboratory costs, scientists know that if they don’t
keep publishing, their careers will be at an end. This is compounded when funding is based on
non-objective measures, or on simplified metrics such as volume of publications, rather than
their quality. Similarly, students and postdoctoral researchers know that if their experiments
fail, they won’t get publications, and the next career step will be jeopardized. Foreign students
and post-docs know that a successful experiment published in a prominent journal can lead to
residency and citizenship, and perhaps a tenure-track position, whereas experiments that fail to
produce the hoped-for result will mean they have to return to their home country. Thus, the
temptation to dishonestly generate experimental results is ultimately financial, but it is rarely to
gain riches, more frequently to just keep a job.
84 5 Scientific Misconduct

Fabrication/Falsification

It may be very important to realize that there is a wide spectrum of severity of research
misconduct. On lesser level/scale are practices such as intentionally failing to cite the work
of competitors, and citing our own work more frequently than necessary. Similarly,
cropping out cross-reactive bands in western blots, or changing the white threshold of an
image to clean up the background must not be done, because it alters the original data, but it
is treated as a mild sin in academics and research. On the other end of the scale is generation
of data by just making up numbers, or generating false images by duplicating/altering/
relabeling other one’s fabricated literature/research/findings. While determining the sever-
ity of the misconduct, or whether it is misconduct at all, it is important to determine the
degree of intent, although this is not always easy for all. Most of the figures in the research
papers are comprised of many similar-looking parts, whether they might be
photomicrographs, gels and blots, flow cytometry plots, or traces from a patch-clamp
amplifier. It can therefore possible for someone to inadvertently grab the same image file
twice, leading to a duplicated and wrongly labeled part of a figure. On the other hand, if
many duplications are found in the figures in a particular literature/paper, and they also
involve rotations, differential cropping, or mirror images, and if similar anomalies are also
apparent in other works by the same authors, deliberate falsification or fabrication is much
more likely.
With lots of pressures to publish the research/findings, and the availability of image
processing software, the temptation to cut corners and artificially generate the desired result
has never been greater work. Thousands of examples can be found in records on the post-
publication peer review site PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/). However, although sites such
as this can alert readers to concerns about research papers and can provide very strong
evidence. They don’t provide proof of intent or reveal which of the authors on multi-author
papers bears responsibility. For this activity, action is required to be taken either by the
authors themselves or through the establishment of an inquiry by their institution/univer-
sity/organization. For the last couple of years or so, most of the research journals have
explicitly stated in their guidelines to authors what kinds of image manipulation are
acceptable, and which are not at all.

Stealing Credit

The importance of obtaining credit for work is illustrated by the frequency and vehemence
of authorship disputes. Papers are the primary currency of research, and authorship is
therefore the main mechanism for determining how credit is allocated. Authorship there-
fore gives benefits, but also carries responsibilities. Like other forms of misbehavior,
authorship issues can range from the trivial to the serious, with plagiarism—the taking of
another’s words or ideas without attribution being classified as “research misconduct,”
along with fabrication and falsification. The reason authorship is so important is because it
5 Institutional Responses to Scientific Misconduct 85

is the currency that determines not only honors such as prizes and membership of
academies, but also the grants and fellowships that pay the researcher’s salary. In life
science publications from academic institutions, the first author is usually the student or
post-doc who did most of the hands-on experimental work. The last author is typically the
laboratory head. Usually, authors in between will be closer to the first position if they have
contributed experimental data, and closer to the last position if they have provided analysis
and writing.
Two of the unethical ways in which authorship is corrupted are known as “Ghost” and
“Honorary” authorship. Ghost authorship is when someone who would fulfill the usual
requirements to be listed as an author—namely to have provided substantial intellectual
input to a paper—is not named among the authors. Pharmaceutical companies have used
ghost authorship as a way of hiding their role in a publication. Honorary authorship is when
an author is listed without having fulfilled the usual requirements to justify their inclusion,
i.e., where they have not made a substantial intellectual contribution to a paper. Sometimes
when drug companies write papers, they offer honorary authorships to “opinion leaders” so
in order to influence clinicians. Honorary inclusion as an author can also be claimed by
department or laboratory heads for work that they have not produced themselves, or it can
be offered to friends or collaborators to curry favor. The honorary inclusion of a famous
person or someone known to the journal’s editors can increase the chances that a paper is
sent out for review. Honorary authorship on one paper can be offered by a group leader in
exchange for honorary inclusion as an author on another group’s paper.

Institutional Responses to Scientific Misconduct

Primary responsibility for the conduct of an inquiry through a valid committee and an
investigation of an allegation of scientific misconduct lies with the institution in which the
research is being conducted. All individuals involved in research funded by the govern-
ment/authority are subject to face inquiry and investigation on the basis of an allegation of
scientific misconduct. This includes students, residents, doctoral/postdoctoral fellows,
staff, faculty, and professional staff, as well as foreign and national institutions, regardless
of where they are physically located. The inquiry is a preliminary investigation conducted
to determine whether the allegation has sufficient substance to warrant a full investigation.
It is not a procedure to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct has occurred and
who is responsible.
The individual should also be informed of his/her right to challenge the appointment of a
committee member or expert on the basis of bias or conflict of interest, the right to be
assisted by counsel and to present evidence to the committee, and the right to comment on
the inquiry report. The notice should also contain a reminder of the respondent’s
obligations, including the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings.
During the inquiry, each respondent, complainant, and witness should have an opportunity
to be interviewed. If the respondent admits that he or she committed scientific misconduct,
86 5 Scientific Misconduct

he or she should be asked to sign a written statement. This provides a sufficient basis to
initiate the investigation which must be informed by the institution at any stage of the
inquiry or investigation if any of the following circumstances are present by the Office of
Research Integrity as described below:

• there is an immediate health hazard involved,

• there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment,
• there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person or persons who made the
allegations of scientific misconduct or the individual or individuals who are the subject
of the complaint,
• it is likely that the incident will be reported publicly,
• the allegation involves a sensitive public health issue,
• there is a reasonable indication of a criminal violation.

Institutional action upon a finding of scientific misconduct may include the denial or
revocation of tenure, the withdrawal of principal investigator status, the issuance of a letter
of reprimand, the review of the respondent’s applications, and/or the requirement that the
investigator withdraws the manuscript(s) and correct the literature. Courts have specifically
found that an individual does not have a constitutionally protected right to continue to serve
as the principal investigator of a public funded grant because institutions are the grantees of
the awards.

Administrative Responses to Scientific Misconduct

Institutions conducting the research have the primary responsibility for investigating
allegations of scientific misconduct. Consequently, the Office of Research Integrity’s
(ORI) responsibility generally consists of reviewing the institution’s investigative report.
Findings of the Office of Research Integrity can be appealed to the Departmental Appeals
Board (DAB). The Chair of the DAB will appoint a Research Integrity Adjudication Panel,
composed of administrative law judges, DAB members, and scientists. The ORI is
represented by the Research Integrity Branch of the Office of the General Counsel in
hearings before the DAB. As a principal investigator/administrator of an interview-based
study that seeks to examine individual’s perceptions of what constitutes elder abuse and
neglect. All interviews have been recorded. Participants are paid a small stipend to thank
them for their time, since the interviews are quite lengthy. It has come to the attention
through the grapevine that, rather than utilizing the recruitment scheme that had been
designed for the study and approved by the IRB, the interviewers have been interviewing
their friends.

• What additional information, if any, do you need at this time?

• What courses of action are open to you as the principal investigator?
5 Misconduct in Regulated Research 87

• Which would you select and why?

• What, if any, harm has occurred as the result of the interviewers’ use of their friends for
these interviews?

Misconduct in Regulated Research

Study-oriented inspections focus on misconduct of scientific studies are important to

conduct product evaluation. For example, new drug/micro—biological applications and
product license applications. An investigator-oriented inspection may be initiated for any
of the following reasons:

• The investigator conducted an extraordinarily important study that has particular signif-
icance with respect to product approval.
• Representatives of the research sponsor have reported difficulties in getting case reports
from the investigator.
• Representatives of the research sponsor have reported some concerns with regard to the
investigator’s work.
• A participant in a study complained about protocol or human subject’s violations.
• The investigator has participated in a large number of studies or has done work outside
his or her specialty area.
• Safety or effectiveness findings are inconsistent with those of other investigators who
have studied the same test article.
• The investigator has claimed too many subjects with a specified disease relative to the
location of the investigation.
• Laboratory results are outside of the range of expected biological variation.

The procedures for study-oriented inspections and investigator-oriented inspections are

similar. The representative will then prepare a written report and will submit it to head-
quarters for evaluation. After the report is evaluated, one of the three types of letters will be
issued to the investigator:

• The letter will state that there were no significant deviations noted. This type of letter
does not require that the clinical investigator responds.
• An informational letter will identify any deviations from regulations and from good
clinical practice. In some cases, a response will be required from the clinical investiga-
tor. If this is expected, the letter will detail what must be done and provide the name of a
contact person should the investigator have any questions.
• A warning letter will be issued, which identifies serious deviations from the relevant
regulations. This type of letter requires an immediate response from the clinical
investigator.
88 5 Scientific Misconduct

In certain cases, the investigator might enter into a consent agreement in addition to
utilizing the opportunity for an informal conference. In such cases, the disqualification
process will not continue. At this level four types of misconduct have been noted from
publication audits:

• the deliberate fabrication of results, known as dry lobbing;

• the violation of regulations governing research, such as a failure to obtain informed
consent;
• the modification of data to enhance its publishability, referred to as fudging;
• the non-deliberate violation of research norms and regulations, often due to a lack of
understanding of basic research principles.

What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty, malpractice, and theft of academic/research

property through various sources of communication or social networking sites. As Bosman
said in his book, “a person of integrity is honest, upright and devoid of duplicity, someone
who displays consistency and strength of moral conviction, with a consequent resistance to
acting against an internalized moral code.” Thus, since ancient period, integrity has been a
perennial topic of interest to human society. However, communication technology has
made a big difference in the academic society, today’s Internet makes it easier not only to
commit plagiarism, but also to detect it. We are living in the network and digital age; it is no
longer true that seeing is believing. Not so long ago, everyone knew that a photo doesn’t
lie. Today, image manipulation is not only possible but most common practice in the
literature. The editors of academic and research journals now have to spend a great deal of
time dealing with a variety of forms of authorial misconduct, in particular plagiarism. In
recent years the term plagiarism has become a high-profile issue in academic and research
society for academic journals; there have been many articles, books, and seminars
discussing how to stop plagiarism in academic publications which might be helpful
documents for our references in the writing. The Oxford English Dictionary defines
plagiarism as:

“The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own”;
interestingly, it also gives the origin of the word as “Early 17th century: from Latin plagiarius,
‘kidnapper’ (from plagium, ‘a kidnapping’, from Greek plagion) . . .”.

The United States Office of Research Integrity Policy (USORI) states on Plagiarism that:

plagiarism includes both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the
substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work. It does not include authorship or
credit disputes
5 What is Plagiarism? 89

Many universities/institutions provide clear guidance for students/researchers and faculty

on their websites about academic standards, including codes of conduct for authors. The
guideline available for authors on Oxford University’s website states:

Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their
consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgment. All published and
unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this
definition. Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional. Under the regulations
for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence.

From the Harvard University’s website, it is clearly mentioned that:

In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from
someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn’t matter whether
the source is a published author, another student, a Website without clear authorship, a Website
that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else’s work is
stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or
by accident.

In recent years, there have been a large number of high-profile plagiarism cases, as a result
of which the perpetrators have variously lost their jobs, degrees, and academic reputations.
A Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi is the burning example of this type of miscon-
duct. Now, the question arises, why do people from the educated elite of society plagiarize?
Why would someone risk their reputation by committing such serious misconduct?
There are various possible reasons for plagiarism by the academics, including the
following:

• Increased pressure to publish;

• Ease of copying and pasting online work;
• Difficulties in writing in English or another language;
• Misplaced respect for other’s work;
• Lack of suitable training;
• Lack of awareness of the rules for acknowledgment of other’s work.

Most of the intellectuals have always been as the element of society to create spiritual
wealth and promote scientific progress they are always in pressure. As a result, horridly
they are captured by to follow plagiarism. In the courses of history, science, and technol-
ogy, management has always been among the key productive forces advancing the
progress of entire human society. So, it may be understood that scholars who want to
gain prestige in this inviting field can find it difficult to resist the temptation to cheat in
order to reach their goals/targets. The Internet makes it temptingly easy to cut and paste
sections even large contents of pre-existing publications.
90 5 Scientific Misconduct

Types of Plagiarism

As per Oxford University’s website there may be eight forms of plagiarism and other
authorial misconduct

• Verbatim (word-for-word) quotation without clear acknowledgment;

• Cutting and pasting;
• Paraphrasing;
• Collusion;
• Inaccurate citation;
• Failure to acknowledge assistance;
• Use of material written by professional agencies or other persons;
• Auto-plagiarism.

The main sources of plagiarism are:

• Secondary source;
• Invalid source;
• Duplication;
• Paraphrasing;
• Repetitive research;
• Replication;
• Misleading attribution;
• Unethical collaboration;
• Verbatim;
• Complete.

There are nine basic types of plagiarism as per guidelines of IEEE (journal and explore
guidelines):

• Self- (or team) plagiarism without identification and acknowledgment;

• Cutting and pasting of others’ work without identification and acknowledgment;
• Replication of methods sections without clear statement of the source;
• Republication of conference papers with little added value;
• Review papers which largely replicate previously published content;
• Plagiarism of images/tables/formulae/data without both acknowledgment and copyright
permission;
• Plagiarism of ideas;
• Wholesale plagiarism of previously published text;
• Republication in translation without acknowledgment, permission, and full citation.
5 What to Look For 91

The chief editors humbly suggested that they should advise their journal editors tend to
pay the greatest attention to certain types of plagiarism: cut-and-paste, duplication of
conference proceedings, self-plagiarism, team plagiarism, and review articles containing
excessive amounts of quotation from the cited original papers. It makes important that,
having studied the cross-check similarity reports and compared the submitted article with
those with which it has a high similarity index, the editor should decide what type of
plagiarism (if any) he/she is dealing with, so that the response may be appropriate.

What to Look For

The general public at large can become aware of accidental errors, or possibly deliberate
research misconduct, in two prominent ways. Firstly, they can become aware if they might
notice misbehavior of a colleague/co-author. Secondly, they might see something as a
third-party observer, when they are reading a paper/article, reviewing a manuscript for a
journal, or when they are acting as an editor/reviewer. Whether it is before a paper is
written, or after it is submitted to be published, the earlier errors are noticed and corrected in
the better way. When criticizing any work at lab meetings, during manuscript review, or
when reading published papers, there are a number of “red flags” to signal as the sloppy
science or might be a possible misconduct as well. Similar text, that may amount to
plagiarism, can be detected by simple Google searches, or by commercial software that
is available at many institutions (e.g., “iTthenticate” http://www.ithenticate.com/ and
“Turnitin” http://www.turnitin.com/). Sloppy statistics, such as failing to describe the
type of error bars that are shown in figures, or results that to be looked implausibly have
been consistent so far, can however be considered a giveaway.
Images must be looked and verified on a computer screen, rather than on a printed copy,
because the resolution is greater, it is possible to zoom in, and the contrast and brightness
can easily be altered. Things that should raise concern include sudden linear changes in
brightness of the background of an image, a washed out or perfectly uniform background,
inadequate resolution, or parts of an image that appear to be duplicated from the original
version. It can be checked through PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/).
Researchers are advised to have a duty to take action if they become aware of errors or
possible research misconduct so far. If they notice a mistake in one of their own
publications, they should write to the journal and ask them to publish a corrected version
of the same to be submitted after incorporation of suitable corrective measures, or, if the
mistake affects the conclusions of the paper, ask for it to be retracted. If a colleague/co-
author is suspected of error or misconduct, the action to take would depend on the specific
circumstances, such as whether it involves a publication or not, whether he/she is more
senior or junior, and whether the error is thought to be accidental or deliberate.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), has always been a great source to advice
the journal editors since its establishment in 1997. Although its mandate is limited, and it
was established by forum of journal editors to help the entire editor’s community, its efforts
92 5 Scientific Misconduct

have raised the standards of publication integrity, and also provided benefits that have
flowed on to authors, publishers and institutions/Universities. The COPE flowcharts,
giving step by step recommendations on how to handle a variety of misconduct related
issues, have been helpful to countless editors, and have also helped whistleblowers and
authors know what to expect (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).
Although it always remains true that science is ultimately self-correcting, society as a
whole will benefit more, and progress will be more rapid, if research is conducted
efficiently. To do so, it requires minimizing the number of errors that enter in the literature,
and quickly correcting those what inevitably do. Research might also be performed more
efficiently if those who conduct it are fair and honest in academics and research. As a
human endeavor, science must be managed actively for its integrity to be upheld. This may
require not only a bottom-up, “grass roots” effort based on principles of honesty and
fairness, it also requires some top-down mechanisms to ensure compliance. There must be
mechanisms in place so that errors and concerns of possible misconduct might be reported.
Publishers must try to minimize entry of errors into the literature by screening manuscripts
and using unbiased peer review and should cooperate with institutions when problems arise
with published work. Nations and national scientific academies should be directed to
provide mechanisms to offer advice and oversight for research institutions. Researchers
need to have integrity in how do they conduct themselves, and whether it is through official
channels or anonymously via the web, when they can see errors or have concerns about
possible optimized misconduct, after seeking careful and meaningful advice, by speaking
them up.

Review Questions

1. What do you understand by Scientific Misconduct? Give a historical perspective of it.

2. Define the term fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
3. Explain detailed guidelines suggested by National Academy of Science for the devel-
opment of institutional growth and to overcome scientific misconduct.
4. What is the basic difference between fabrication and falsification?
5. Which Institutional Responses to Scientific Misconduct will you suggest for better
research in the society?
6. What is the primary responsibility for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct
by the administrators of an institution?
7. What are the most common misconducts observed in regulated research by a commit-
tee in the research organization?
8. What do you understand by plagiarism? Explain its main dimensions.
9. Explain main sources and types of plagiarism as per different research/publication
organizations.
Further Reading 93

10. Write short notes on the following:

(a) Poor Practices vs. Misconduct
(b) Stealing credit
(c) Investigator-Oriented Inspection
(d) Committee on Publication Ethics.

Further Reading

Alford CF (2002) Whistle blowers: broken lives and organizational power. Cornell Univ Press,
New York, NY
Babbage C (1970) Reflections on the decline of science in England. Kelley, New York, NY
Bornmann L (2013) Research misconduct—definitions, manifestations and extent. www.mdpi.com/
journal/publications
D’Angelo J (2012) Ethics in science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Gross C (2016) Scientific misconduct. University of California, Berkeley, CA
Neville C (2010) The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism. Open University Press
McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY
Servick K (2014) Researcher files lawsuit over anonymous PubPeer Comments. Science. http://news.
sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/10/researcher-files-lawsuit-over-anonymouspubpeer-
comments.
Shamoo AE, Resnik DB (2003) Responsible conduct of research. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY
Shapin S (1994) A social history of truth: civility and science in seventeenth-century England. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Tim S (2008) Roberts, Student plagiarism in an online world: problems and solutions. Information
Science Reference, London
Zhan Y(H) (2016) Against plagiarism. A guide for editors and authors. Springer International
Publishing, Cham
Ziman J (2000) Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Redundant Publications
6

Overview

Redundant, Duplicate, and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the
scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of
science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much
challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce
material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a
single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the
early, middle, and later stages of an ongoing study. This may have a damaging impact on
the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of
representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes
like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice
a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is
being referred to, the data/information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all.
Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of
science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by
the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive
publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, datasets, or
publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or
completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of
a previously/simultaneously or future published study is duplicated. These publications
may share the same, similar, or overlapping data, hypotheses, discussion, methods, results,
and/or conclusions. Typically, one or more of the publications do not have full cross-
references to the others and may have similar or identical authors in different orders. In
certain observed cases, redundancy may include salami slicing of the data into subsets
instead of representing the study as a whole for example, using data collected from one

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 95

S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_6
96 6 Redundant Publications

group of patients but carving out different data subsets instead of appropriately combining
them into a study, or the authors may add new data and make a study appear new.
Duplicate/redundant publication is especially improper when it is deceptive. Covert
submission and publication of previously published material are deceiving to those who
can read or use the information contained in the article/literature. Most of the experts would
agree that if the editors, peer reviewers, readers, and all end users of the information were
informed about an overlap or duplication of publication, appropriate decisions could be
made. However, when authors do not disclose that the same study sample is being used or
that an earlier study is being supplemented to produce a larger sample size although the
earlier study included the same patients, they would be misleading the readership, and
some would consider such act as a form of ethical misconduct. Redundant publication not
only has ethical and legal issues but also wastes resources and has a negative impact on the
literature/research/findings base. There are so many proposed reasons for why authors to be
engaged in such an act of covert or overt duplicate publication. Ultimately, the quandary
lies in whether an author fully discloses to the editor that there is a potential that the
submitted article contains some or much of the data from another study (unpublished or
not). It is important to note that although authors have published a body of text, they are not
allowed to republish either portions or the whole of their own work (self-plagiarism). The
International Council of Medical Journal Editors has published several criteria necessary if
repetitive, redundant, or duplicate publication is acceptable. These conditions include the
following:

• Editors from both journals have given the author(s) approval;

• Priority of the primary publication is respected;
• The secondary publication, which may be an abbreviated version, is intended for a
different readership;
• The secondary publication accurately represents the primary publication;
• The secondary publication clearly states that it is based on or replicates the primary
publication;
• The title of the secondary publication indicates that it is a secondary publication.

Authorship Issues

Naming authors on a scientific paper ensures that the appropriate individuals get credit, and
are accountable, for any sort of research. Deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s rela-
tionship to their work is considered to be a form of misconduct that undermines confidence
in the reporting of the work itself. While there is no universal definition of authorship, an
author is generally considered to be an individual who has made a significant intellectual
contribution to the study/research/findings. As per the guidelines for authorship established
6 Authorship Issues 97

by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “All persons designated as

authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.” There
are four criteria that must be met to be credited as an author:

• Substantial contribution to the study conception and design, data acquisition, analysis,
and interpretation.
• Drafting or revising the article for intellectual content.
• Approval of the final version.
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to the accuracy or
integrity of any part of the work.

The following may be some general guidelines to the authors, which might vary from
field to field:

• The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors.

• Individuals who are involved in a study but don’t satisfy the journal’s criteria for
authorship should be listed and treated as Contributors or Acknowledged Individuals
(assisting the research by providing advice, providing research space, departmental
oversight, and obtaining financial support).
• For large, multi-center trials, the list of clinicians and centers is typically published,
along with a statement of the individual contributions made. Some groups use to list
authors alphabetically, sometimes with a note to explain that all authors made equal
contributions to the study and the publication.

Three main types of redundant authorship are considered as unacceptable in publication.

These are:

• Ghost Authors, who contribute substantially but are not acknowledged (often paid by
commercial sponsors)
• Guest Authors, who make no discernible contributions, but are listed to help increase
the chances of publication;
• Gift Authors, whose contribution is based solely on a tenuous affiliation with a study.

Issues around the authorship can be complex and sensitive. Early career researchers who
encounter such situations may fear they will jeopardize their reputation and career if they
speak up. They take the time to fully understand each journal’s guidelines for authorship
and industry requirements. If we find ourselves in a challenging situation that we are not
sure how to handle, consult with a trusted mentor, guide, or supervisor.
98 6 Redundant Publications

Problems Caused by Redundant Publication

The following problems can cause duplicate/redundant publication:

• Deception and Ethical Issues:

– Skews the evidence base because readers may assume that they are reading two
different readings/studies/findings.
– Misleads the readers that the article contains original/updated information/research.
– Derangement of the reputation of that publication/journal.
– Distorts the purpose of publication/journal as being presenter of some new informa-
tion/findings.
– Infringes the international copyright law.
• Wastage of Resources:
– Waste time and the resources of journals/publications, editors, reviewers, readers,
libraries, and e-database.
– Needless expansion of the body of published literature/findings.
– Wastage of journal/publication space and to create confusion among the gentle
readers/scholars.
– Wastage of paper and other writing resources.
– Wastage of readers time and resources to find, read and retaining the already
published material when they could use that time to read new and updated research
materials.
• Impact on literature base and future research:
– Overemphasizes significance of content/finding through repetitive publication.
– Distorts findings and confounds scientific communication by dividing rather than
combining closely related data from a single group.
– Interferes with meta-analysis by experimental numbers.
– Results in qualitative exaggeration of an intervention’s efficacy.

Acceptability and Consequences of Redundancy

Embedded in the definition of authorship is the fact that authors are ultimately the ones
responsible for presenting, publishing, and defending their work. Therefore, the ultimate
burden of integrity falls upon the authors. Although some authors may claim ignorance to
publication guidelines, many journals clearly publish what is or is not acceptable with
regard to duplicate publication. Thus, authors must read the journal instructions and must
be aware of these issues. As Tobin stated, “the editor is not the police, it is ultimately the
authors who are responsible.” Editors have a different but equally tasking responsibility in
relation to duplicate publication. Editors must clearly define and implement the ethical
standards of their journals. Although editors are responsible for following up on ethical
6 Acceptability and Consequences of Redundancy 99

misconduct issues when they come to light, they are not solely responsible for investigating
and/or punishing the authors. The structure of the greater scientific community, including
author’s institutions, ethics boards, licensing boards, and funding agencies, must also
involve. The responsibility to recognize and report duplication rests with all who come
in contact with the study, including colleagues aware of one’s work, peer reviewers,
editors, and the readership of the journal. At times, clandestine duplicate publications are
divulged when someone reads a journal article and informs the editor of the journal or an
official of the author’s institution. Situations when duplicate publication may be
acceptable are:

• Brief abstracts in conference proceedings;

• News media reports;
• Reports distributed to narrow audiences;
• Communication in two different languages with clear cross-references to reach a larger
audience;
• Reaching different audiences or end users;
• Too large studies to publish in a single phase/article;
• Two competing submissions by coworkers disagree with the analysis and interpretation
of the same study/findings;
• Editors of different journals simultaneously or jointly publishing an article in agreement
with doing so in general public interest;
• Manuscripts from different groups of authors who have analyzed the same data.

If duplication is identified before or after acceptance of an article but before publication,

the manuscript should be rejected outright. If duplicate publication is identified after
publication, the editor should communicate in one or more of the following ways:

• send a letter of reprimand to the author(s);

• notify editors of other journals;
• inform the author’s institution lab;
• inform the author’s academic institution;
• inform ethics/institutional review boards;
• inform professional organizations;
• inform funding/granting agencies (like UGC/CSIR/DST/DBT/ICAR/ICSSR, etc.);
• inform indexing services (e.g., PubMed);
• inform the professional community portal/ethics body.

Once the appropriate research bodies have been informed, the next step is to make a
correction to the record, which may be accomplished in several ways. A notice of duplicate/
redundant publication or plagiarism may be published in the journal. A notice of retraction
may also be published. Some writers suggested that the journal publishes a letter of apology
100 6 Redundant Publications

from the authors side. Others recommended that the journal publish reprimanding
editorials. Finally, articles may be retracted from journals and/or from indexing services.

How to Prevent Redundancy?

Prevention may be considered as the best approach to duplicate/redundant publication.

Both the editor and the author can take combined steps toward preventing this from
becoming an issue/curse. First, the author must read carefully in detail the instructions
for authors of the journal to which the manuscript is being submitted. This document will
provide detailed information regarding the journal’s policy of publication toward redun-
dant publication. If uncertainty, the author should contact the editor personally to ask for
any necessary clarification regarding any confusion. The author should fully disclose to the
editor in the covering letter and in the manuscript that some or all of the same study
contents or data have been used/will be used in published articles, currently submitted
articles, unpublished papers, or any other article relating to the data or content of the article.
The author should include in the covering letter or sign a statement denying or disclosing
overlap with any other work. It is suggested that the copies of the other’s similar work may
be submitted to the journal at the same time as the study for consideration. Authors must be
cautious to report information about their study to the media sources, funding agencies,
government agencies, or others who disseminate information before the publication of their
study. Some reporting in advance of publication may be warranted but should be discussed
with the editor and agreed upon in advance. Peer reviewers should notify the editor if
duplicate publication is supposed during the review process. After publication, readers are
encouraged to notify the editor if there is suspicion of duplicate publication. Editors should
ensure that their journal’s policy on duplicate publication is clearly stated and easy to
follow.
Editors should publish editorials or commentaries to educate readers about this topic.
Journals should have in place definitions, procedures for handling suspected manuscripts,
reporting policies, corrections/retractions, and sanctions. Editors may screen each manu-
script for redundancy if there are enough resources in their journal office to complete this
task successfully. An alternate approach may be to randomly screen submissions for signs
of duplication. If redundant or duplicate publication is attempted or occurred without any
disclosure to the editor/editorial board, a suitable action should be taken as per the norms
decided by the editorial unit.

Salami Slicing

The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several
different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publi-
cation, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami
6 Simultaneous Submission 101

slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications.
These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a
broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable
in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all.
According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can
result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe
that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject
sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates
repetition to waste reader’s time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must
also handle each paper separately. Furthermore, it unfairly inflates the author’s citation
record in the indexing process. That’s why each paper should clearly define its hypothesis
and to be presented as each section of a much larger study. Most of the journals request that
the authors who either know or suspect a manuscript submitted for publication represents
fragmented data should disclose this information, as well as enclose any other papers
whether published or unpublished might be part of the paper under the consideration. To
prevent salami slicing when we find breaking up or segmenting data from a single study
and creating different manuscripts for publication. It is publishing small slices of research
in several different papers that is salami publication or salami slicing. It can be considered
unethical because salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature by leading
unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each slice is derived from a different
subject sample. The following corrective measures can be taken in this situation:

• Avoid inappropriately breaking up data from a single study into two or more papers.
• When submitting a paper, be transparent.
• Send copies of any manuscripts closely related to the manuscript under consideration.
• Be careful because this may include any manuscripts published, recently submitted, or
already accepted.

Simultaneous Submission

Most of the authors have an obligation to make sure their research paper is based on
original and never before published research/findings. Intentionally submitting or
re-submitting work for duplicate publication is considered a breach of publishing ethics.
A simultaneous submission occurs when a person submits a paper to different publications
at the same time, which can result in more than one journal publishing that particular
research paper. A duplicate/multiple publication occurs when two or more papers, without
full cross-reference, share essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and/or
conclusions. This can occur in varying degrees, literal duplication, partial but substantial
duplication, or even duplication by paraphrasing. The most important reason behind
duplicate publication of original research is considered unethical, is that it can result in
inadvertent double counting or inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study,
102 6 Redundant Publications

which distorts the available evidence. There might be number of situations in which the
publishers of two journals might agree in advance to use the duplicate work, including:

• Combined editorials about a plagiarism case involving the two journals;

• Guidelines, position statements in a practical database;
• Translations of articles provided with prior approval have been granted by the first
publisher, and that full and prominent disclosure of its original source is given at the
time of submission.

As the main rule of thumb, the articles submitted for publication must be original one
and must not have been submitted to any other publication unit/department. At the time of
submission, authors must disclose any details of related papers also when in a different
language, similar papers in press, and translations.

Competing Interests

In a publication segment, when an investigator, author, editor, or reviewer has some

financial/personal interests or beliefs that might affect his/her objectivity, or inappropri-
ately influence his/her actions, there exists a potential competing interest. Such
relationships are also called dual commitments, competing interests, or competing
loyalties. The most obvious competing interests may be direct and indirect financial
relationships. In direct relationship the components are employment, stock ownership,
grants, and patents while in indirect relationship honoraria, consultancies to sponsoring
organizations, mutual fund ownership, and paid expert testimony are the main components.
Undeclared financial interests can seriously undermine the credibility of the journal, the
authors, and the science/research itself. Competing interests may also exist as a result of
personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. As an example, we
might take researcher who has:

• A relative who works at the company whose product the researcher is evaluating.
• A self-serving stake in the research results (potential promotion/career advancement
based on outcomes).
• Personal beliefs that are in direct conflict with the topic he/she is researching.

Not by taking all relationships represent a true competing interest conflicts can be
potential or actual. Some considerations should be taken into account including whether
the person’s association with the organization interferes with their ability to carry out the
research or paper without bias and whether the relationship, when later revealed, makes a
reasonable reader feel deceived or misled. Full disclosure about a relationship that could
constitute a competing interest even if the person doesn’t believe it affects their judgment
should be reported to the institution’s ethics group and to the journal editor to which a paper
6 Competing Interests 103

is submitted. Most publishers require disclosure in the form of a cover letter and/or footnote
in the manuscript. A journal may use disclosures as a basis for editorial decisions and will
publish them as they may be important to readers in judging the manuscript. Likewise, the
journal may decide not to publish on the basis of the declared conflict. According to the
U.S. Office of Research Integrity, having a competing interest is not in itself unethical, and
there are some that are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action,
and, if in doubt, disclose. There might be two states in declaration of competing interests:

• An undisclosed relationship that may pose a competing interest: It exists by

neglecting to disclose a relationship with a person or organization that could affect
one’s objectivity, or inappropriately influence one’s actions. It is considered unethical
because some relationships do not necessarily present a conflict. Participants in the peer-
review and publication process must disclose relationships that could be viewed as
potential competing interests. The following steps might be taken:
– When submitting a paper, state explicitly whether potential competing interests do or
do not exist.
– Indicate this in the manuscript for single-blind journals or in the title page for double-
blind journals.
– Investigators must disclose potential competing interests to study participants and
should state in the manuscript whether they have done so.
– Reviewers must also disclose any competing interests that could bias their opinions
of the manuscript.
• An undisclosed funding source that may pose a competing interest:
This may exist by neglecting to disclose the role of the study sponsor(s),
– in study design;
– in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data;
– in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

It may be considered unethical because undeclared financial conflicts may seriously

undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and the science itself. The following
steps might be taken:

• When submitting a paper, a declaration (with the heading “Role of the funding source”)
should be made in a separate section of the text and placed before the References.
• Describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection,
analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to
submit the paper for publication.
• Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or
financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the
data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.”
104 6 Redundant Publications

Misrepresentation of Data

The concept of misrepresentation of data unlike fabrication and falsification neither has a
clear nor uncontroversial vision. Most scientists might be agreeing that fabrication of
writing is making up data and falsification is changing the entire data. But what does it
mean to misrepresent the entire data? As a unique answer to this question, we may define
misrepresentation of data as “communicating honestly reported data in a deceptive man-
ner.” But what is meant by deceptive communication here? The use of statistics presents
researchers will be with numerous opportunities to misrepresent data/information. We may
use a statistical technique, such as multiple regression or the analysis of variance
(ANOVA), to make one’s results appear more significant or convincing than they really
have with. Or one might eliminate/trim outliers when cleaning up raw data (primary data).
On the other hand, misrepresenting of data includes drawing unwarranted inference from
data, creating deceptive graphs of figures, and using suggestive language for rhetorical
effect. Since research scholars may disagree about the proper use of statistical techniques
and other means of representing data, the line between misrepresentation of data and
disagreement about research methods is blurry at all. Since misrepresentation may be a
difficult task to define, many organizations/institutions have already refused to characterize
misrepresenting data as a form of scientific misconduct so far. It is too important to pay
attention to the problem of misrepresenting data, if one is concerned about promoting
objectivity in research, since many scientific errors and biases result from the misrepresen-
tation of data.
Depending upon the nature of the data/information distorted to obtain social rewards
and escape social punishment, such misrepresentation is called either preference falsifica-
tion or knowledge falsification. On any certain issue, preference falsification occurs when
an individual’s publicly expressed preference, or simply public preference, differs from the
corresponding privately held preference, or private preference. Similarly, knowledge
falsification entails a discrepancy between the communicator’s private knowledge and
public knowledge. Whereas a person’s private preference always reflects the relevant
private knowledge, this person’s public preference and public knowledge need not be
mutually consistent. In common practice, the two main choices tend to be tightly coordi-
nated to make the former aspect credible. Someone who pretends to favor one particular
option, but then proceeds to give reasons for another option’s superiority, will hardly come
across as sincere; the person’s intended audience will sense that they are concealing
something.
Fraud is a broad term which includes a variety of offenses to share the elements of
deceit or intentional misrepresentation of facts and files, with the intent of unlawfully
depriving a person or organization of property or legal rights. It may be considered an
expensive problem. Fraud can occur at any level or extent in an organization. Certain
instances of fraud can be easy to spot if a referee knows for a fact that a particular laboratory
does not have the facilities to conduct the research that was published. It’s obvious if an
image looks manipulated or is made up from several different experiments is a fraud. The
6 Misrepresentation of Data 105

data from the control experiments might be too perfect in manipulation. In such situations,
an investigation would be conducted to determine if an act of fraud was committed. Digital
image enhancement might be acceptable in certain cases. However, a positive relationship
between the original data and the resulting image must be maintained to avoid creating
unrepresentative data or the loss of meaningful signals. If a figure has been significantly
manipulated, we must note the nature of the enhancements in the figure legend or in the
materials and methods section at par. What about unintentional error that comes across as
misconduct? According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USO-RI),
research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. But it’s best
never to have the integrity of your work come into question. As a researcher and author, it is
most essential part of writing to understand what constitutes appropriate data management
including data collection, retention, analysis, and reporting in accordance with responsible
conduct of research. Some general suggestions to overcome this type of misconduct/fraud
are as under:

• Manipulation of images:
– Images may be manipulated for improved clarity only.
– No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or
introduced.
– Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are usually acceptable as long
as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.
• Data access and retention:
– Authors should be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for
editorial review. Therefore, all data for a specific paper may be retained for a
reasonable time after publication. There should be a named custodian for the data.
– Studies undertaken in human beings (clinical trials have specific guidelines about the
duration of data retention).
• Manipulation of data:
– Never tamper with or change data. Keep meticulous records of the data.
– Records of raw data should be accessible in case an editor asks for them—even after
the paper has been published.
– Understand the publisher’s policies on data before submit a paper.
• Manipulating images:
– If authors need to adjust an image to enhance clarity, make sure that they know what
is considered acceptable before submitting their paper.
– Even if the image manipulations are considered acceptable, report it to the publica-
tion prior to submitting the paper.
– Review any data images used to support the paper against the original image data to
make sure nothing has been altered.
106 6 Redundant Publications

Publish Ethically

Top reasons to publish the entire academic and research findings are the following:

• To ensure scientific progress: Truth is the foundation of science/humanity and the

progress of human ideas. The scientific community thrives only when each participant
should publish his/her work/findings with integrity.
• To protect life and the planet: Publishing ethically ensures that we have trusted
information on which to build future therapies, technologies, and policies. Published
work based on fraudulent data can form an inappropriate basis for follow-up studies
leading to waste of resources and harmful effects to patients, communities, or habitats.
• To promote ethical behavior: Doing the right thing sets an example and reinforces our
responsibility to our peers and society at large who generally pay for our work.
Believing our actions won’t make a difference or are above the law can lead those
who don’t know better into believing the same.
• To be good for reputation: There is nothing like getting published and being able to
accept credit and accolades for a job well done. Do it the right way/direction. A
published paper is a permanent record of author’s work. Don’t become part of the
minority who end up with a retracted paper and a tarnished reputation.
• To be the only way: A good reputation and acting with integrity opens the door to
opportunity. Our work represents not only we but the research institution/organization,
the funding body, and other researcher too.

Review Questions

1. Why redundant publication has not only ethical and legal issues but also waste
resources and has a negative impact on the literature? Explain briefly.
2. What is the self-plagiarism issue in redundant publication?
3. What are the nomenclatures of a good author?
4. Give some general guidelines to the authors.
5. Which problems can cause while redundant publication by an author?
6. Under which situations duplicate publication may be acceptable? Explain briefly.
7. How can you prevent redundancy in publication?
8. What do you understand by salami slicing? Explain various parameters of salami
slicing.
9. What are main parameters of competing interests?
10. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) Main Types of redundant authorship
(b) Deception and Ethical Issues
(c) Consequences of Redundancy
(d) Misrepresentation of Data
Further Reading 107

Further Reading

Albanese JS (2010) Intellectual property theft and fraud combating piracy. Transaction Publishers,
London
Boutrona I, Ravaud P (2018) Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.
Proc Acad Natl Sci U S A 115(11):2613–2619
Fennell C (2012) Ethics in research & publication. Elsevier, New York
Francisco M, Salzano A, Hurtado M (2004) Lost paradises and the ethics of research and publication.
Oxford University Press, New York
Johnson C (2006) Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 29(7):505–509
Kuran T (2001) International Encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Elsevier, New York
Resnik DB (2001) International Encyclopaedia of the social & behavioural sciences. Elsevier,
New York
Vervaart P (2014) Ethics in online publications. JIFCC 25(3):244–251
Wolfson LJ (2015) International Encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Elsevier,
New York
Yadav SK (2015) Elements of research writing. UDH Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi
Publication Ethics
7

Overview

Publication Ethics is a continuum from the first step of research design through to the
information being read by the reader and thus includes the ethical behavior of the authors in
writing and submitting a scientific manuscript to a publisher for the purpose of publication
but must also include the role of referees, editors, publishers, and even the reader in the
process. Education can play a large part in decreasing the incidence of misconduct, by
making individuals realize that certain behavior is inappropriate, by creating an awareness
of ethical issues, and by introducing the concept of good practice in scientific research and
publication from an early age. There are certain examples of policies, rules, and guidelines
about research and publication ethics which have already been discussed earlier in this
book, however, policies and rules are not the same in all aspects of education and research.
All human activity may involve misconduct, and thus ethical education has always been an
issue of global importance. The particular ethical issue of academic plagiarism is also a
global problem. In the more developed countries, the USA established the Office of
Scientific Integrity and the Office of Scientific Integrity Review in 1989; in 1999 these
two bodies were consolidated into the Office of Research Integrity (https://ori.hhs.gov).
Publication is considered the endpoint of the research project. New scientific results may be
assessed, corrected, and further developed by the scientific community only if they are
published. Guidelines on responsible research and publication are now set, to encourage
and promote high ethical standards in the conduct of research and in biomedical
publications. They address various aspects of the research and publishing including duties
of editors and authorship determination. Publication of results is an integral and essential
component of the process known as the scientific method to seek new knowledge.
The scientific community can assess, correct, and further develop our new scientific
results only if they were published. The most important way to communicate and

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 109
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_7
110 7 Publication Ethics

disseminate new knowledge is scientific peer-reviewed journals, and scientific article is

considered the most convenient form. Publishing of research results is both working and
ethical responsibility of the scientists. The general principles of the scientific method are
universal but their detailed application may differ depending on scientific discipline and
circumstances. Therefore, many institutions and international associations developed
guidelines on responsible research and publication, to encourage and promote high ethical
standards in the conduct of research and in biomedical publications. The general principles
of guidelines are based on the rules of the good scientific practice. They are a set
concerning various aspects of research process including publication practices and author-
ship determination. In general, the primary aim of the guidelines is not to codify a set of
rules but to help in preventing scientific misconduct. Guidelines on good publication
practice, issued in 2001 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), were found useful
not only for authors and editors, but also for editorial board members, readers, owners of
journals, and publishers. Research Misconduct means the Fabrication, Falsification, or
Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Fabrication is the making up of data or results and recording or reporting them as if they
were real, while Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes,
or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in
the research record. Plagiarism is well defined as the appropriation of another person’s
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit and will be covered in
more detail later in this paper. It is important to be reminded that Research Misconduct is
purposeful misconduct and as such does not include honest error or differences of opinion
which may occur at time to time in research and which can generally be corrected or
outlined at the time of publication.
COPE’s Guidelines address various aspects of research and publishing including
authorship and duties of editors and provide advice on dealing with any misconduct.
Editorial boards of the majority of biomedical journals follow the principles of good
scientific practice and Vancouver rules are basis of their style and format. Editors have
many responsibilities; for the editorial content of the journal, for establishing the policies
for authorship and submission of manuscripts to the journal, and for establishing a process
of constructive and prompt evaluation of manuscripts. They are responsible to their readers
and to authors, for maintaining integrity and confidentiality of their work during evaluation
process. Editors should work to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts and be
prepared to deal with errors and allegations of misbehavior, i.e., scientific dishonesty and
misuse of publication process.
Editors are responsible for the editorial policies of the journal and stand behind all
decisions made by the members of editorial board. They must consider and balance the
interests of many constituents—readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members,
advertisers, and the media. Editors are responsible not only for technical perfection but also
for the following of ethical standards in all phases of publication process. Therefore,
editor’s duties are numerous and the most important ones concern policies for:
7 Overview 111

• Authorship and communication with authors;

• Submission and evaluation of manuscript;
• Manuscript review and relation to reviewers as a core of editor–author relationship is
briefly presented.

Each manuscript should have its own record containing identification number, and
important dates—when it was received, reviewed, accepted/rejected, and published. As
soon as the manuscript was submitted the editors are obliged to:

• Check whether criteria for the submission of the manuscript were met;
• Inform authors that the manuscript was received and sent for evaluation quoting
approximately time for the results of evaluation;
• Send the manuscript for peer review.

Peer review is a critical element in the editorial process of biomedical journals. The
evaluation of manuscript is susceptible to various misconducts and majority of author’s
complaints relate to peer-review process. Therefore, editors must establish the process for
the evaluation of manuscript. The main goals of a good peer review are to provide expert
advice to the authors regarding the scientific validity of the data and methods and help the
editors in their decision about the suitability of the paper for publication. Editors may
accept manuscripts without outside review if they find the subject is very important or
timely. They also may reject the manuscript without outside review if the quality of the
manuscript is poor, the subject matter is outside the purview of the journal, or criteria for
the submission of the manuscript are not met.
Editors must establish a system for deciding on the fate of the manuscript: whether it
will be accepted, accepted after appropriate revision, or be rejected. Criteria for decision-
making include the reviewer’s comments and recommendations, the availability of space,
but the most important are the editor’s judgment regarding the suitability of the manuscript
for the journal and its value and interest for the readers. Editor’s decision to accept or reject
the manuscript submitted for publication relies mainly on the reviewer’s comments and
suggestions. Reasons for manuscript rejection may include scientific weakness, lack of
originality, lack of importance and interest to readers or lack of space. Editors should
consider appeals of authors regarding rejection of the manuscript only if authors provide a
good explanation why decision may have been wrong, and if they are willing to revise the
manuscript in response to reviewer’s righteous comments. If the authors resubmit previ-
ously rejected but not revised manuscript, editor should immediately reject it. However,
editor may agree to reconsider rejected manuscript. A revised manuscript should be
evaluated by an original reviewer or be sent to one or two new reviewers. As an alternative,
editor may consider the manuscript as a new one and send it to be reviewed by new
reviewers. Editors should not make decisions on manuscripts about which they may have
conflict of interest.
112 7 Publication Ethics

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was founded in 1997 in United Kingdom to

address breaches of research and publication ethics. A voluntary body providing a discus-
sion forum and advice for scientific editors, it aims to find practical ways of dealing with
the issues and to develop good practice. Intellectual honesty should be actively encouraged
in all medical and scientific courses of study and used to inform publication ethics and
prevent misconduct. It is with that in mind that these guidelines have been produced. COPE
is governed by the Trustee Board (maximum of 12), who are ultimately responsible for the
financial, legal, and business operations of COPE as a charitable business and gives
authority to Council and the Executive Officer and team to manage the day-to-day affairs
of the organization. COPE’s first guidelines were developed after discussion at the COPE
meeting in April 1999 and were published as Guidelines on Good Publication Practice in
the Annual Report in 1999. On their basis, the first edition of Code of Conduct for Editors
was published on the first COPE website in November 2004, with an Editorial in the British
Medical Journal (BMJ). The Code was replaced in 2017 with a simplified description of
expectations as COPE’s Core Practices, with links to COPE’s detailed guidance, to aid
editors and publishers in the fight against research and publication misconduct. The
guidelines of COPE were developed from a preliminary version drafted by individual
members of the committee, which was then submitted to extensive consultation. They
addressed:

• Study Design and Ethical Approval: Good research should be well justified, well
planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. To conduct research to a lower
standard may constitute misconduct. The suggested actions are:
– Laboratory and clinical research should be driven by protocol.
– Pilot studies should have a written rationale.
– Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just
collect data.
– Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and collaborators, including, if
appropriate, the participants.
– The final protocol should form part of the research record.
– Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and collaborators and on
matters of authorship and publication, is advised.
– Statistical issues should be considered early in study design, including power
calculations, to ensure there are neither too few nor too many participants.
– Formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriately constituted research
ethics committee is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and
anonymized human tissues; Use of human tissues in research should conform to the
highest ethical standards, such as those recommended by the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics.
7 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 113

– Fully informed consent should always be sought. It may not always be possible,
however, and in such circumstances, an appropriately constituted research ethics
committee should decide if this is ethically acceptable.
– When participants are unable to give fully informed consent, research should follow
international guidelines, such as those of the Council for International Organizations
of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).
– Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regu-
latory principles, and local licensing arrangements. International standards vary.
– Formal supervision, usually the responsibility of the principal investigator, should be
provided for all research projects: this must include quality control, and the frequent
review and long-term retention (may be up to 15 years) of all records and primary
outputs.
• Data Analysis: Data should be appropriately analyzed, but inappropriate analysis does
not necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute
misconduct. The suggested actions are:
– All sources and methods used to obtain and analyze data, including any electronic
pre-processing, should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations should be provided
for any exclusions.
– Methods of analysis must be explained in detail, and referenced, if they are not in
common use.
– The post hoc analysis of subgroups is acceptable, as long as this is disclosed. Failure
to disclose that the analysis was post hoc is unacceptable.
– The discussion section of a paper should mention any issues of bias which have been
considered, and explain how they have been dealt with in the design and interpreta-
tion of the study.
• Authorship: There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts
have been made. As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular
section of the study. The suggested actions are:
– The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception,
design, analysis, and writing of the study against the collection of data and other
routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular
individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.
– To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on
in the planning of a research project who will be credited as authors, as contributors,
and who will be acknowledged.
– All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The
multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this can be
resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions.
– Careful reading of the target journal’s “Advice to Authors” is advised, in the light of
current uncertainties.
114 7 Publication Ethics

• Conflict of Interests: Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully
apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors.
Financial interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share owner-
ship, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, and company support for staff. The
suggested actions are:
– Such interests where relevant must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and
reviewers.
– Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt,
disclose. Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from the review and selection
process for the relevant submission.
• The Peer-Review Process: Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to
provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. Working methods vary
from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in which the name of the reviewer
is disclosed, together with the full or edited report. The suggested actions are:
– Suggestions from authors as to who might act as reviewers are often useful, but there
should be no obligation on editors to use those suggested.
– The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by
expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewer’s colleagues who may be asked (with
the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
– The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
– Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or
interpretations, unless they have the author’s permission.
– Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable
reports.
– If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor.
– Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer review, selection, and
appeals processes.
– Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance rates and publication
times.
• Redundant Publication: Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers,
without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or
conclusions. The suggested actions are:
– Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.
– Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not
preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made
at the time of submission.
– Republication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full
and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
– At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in
a different language, and similar papers in press.
7 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 115

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others published and
unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under new
authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at
any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication. It applies to both print and
electronic versions. As an action, all sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of
other people’s written or illustrative material are to be used, permission must be sought.
• Duties of Editors: Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their
journal from the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in good
shape. Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management
team. They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including
readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers, and the media. The
suggested actions are:
– Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on
the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit
of the journal.
– Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an
especially sympathetic hearing.
– Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
– All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full
account possible bias due to related or conflicting interests.
– Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
– When a published paper is subsequently found to contain major flaws, editors must
accept responsibility for correcting the record prominently and promptly.
• Media Relations: Journalists may attend scientific meetings at which preliminary
research findings are presented, leading to their premature publication in the mass
media. The suggested actions are:
– Authors approached by the media should give as balanced an account of their work as
possible, ensuring that they point out where evidence ends and speculation begins.
– Simultaneous publication in the mass media and a peer-reviewed journal is advised,
as this usually means that enough evidence and data have been provided to satisfy
informed and critical readers.
– Where this is not possible, authors should help journalists to produce accurate
reports, but refrain from supplying additional data.
– All efforts should be made to ensure that patients who have helped with the research
should be informed of the results by the authors before the mass media, especially if
there are clinical implications.
– Authors should be advised by the organizers if journalists are to attend scientific
meetings.
– It may be helpful to authors to be advised of any media policies operated by the
journal in which their work is to be published.
116 7 Publication Ethics

• Advertising: Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant income from
advertising. Reprints may also be lucrative. The suggested actions are:
– Editorial decisions must not be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential:
editorial and advertising administration must be clearly separated.
– Advertisements that mislead must be refused, and editors must be willing to publish
criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
– Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be
added.

How to Deal with Misconduct in COPE

As per Committee of Publication Ethics the following corrective measures were suggested:

• Principles:
– The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause others to regard as
true that which is not true.
– The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on the particular act or
omission, but also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer, or
publisher involved.
– Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by
negligence. It is implicit, therefore, that best practice requires complete honesty, with
full disclosure.
– Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive.
• Investigating Misconduct:
– Editors should not simply reject papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are
ethically obliged to pursue the case. However, knowing how to investigate and
respond to possible cases of misconduct is difficult.
– COPE is always willing to advise, but for legal reasons, can only advise on
anonymized cases.
– It is for the editor to decide what action to take.
• Serious Misconduct:
– Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously, but they
must recognize that they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means
to conduct investigations into serious cases.
– The editor must decide when to alert the employers of the accused author(s).
– Some evidence is required, but if employers have a process for investigating
accusations as they are increasingly required to do then editors do not need to
assemble a complete case. Indeed, it may be ethically unsound for editors to do so,
because such action usually means consulting experts, so spreading abroad serious
questions about the author(s).
7 How to Deal with Misconduct in COPE 117

– If editors are presented with convincing evidence perhaps by reviewers of serious

misconduct, they should immediately pass this on to the employers, notifying the
author(s) that they are doing so.
– If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing evidence,
then editors should confidentially seek expert advice.
– If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then editors should notify the
employers.
– If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes should proceed
in the normal way.
– If presented with convincing evidence of serious misconduct, where there is no
employer to whom this can be referred, and the author(s) are registered doctors,
cases can be referred to the General Medical Council.
– If, however, there is no organization with the legitimacy and the means to conduct an
investigation, then the editor may decide that the case is sufficiently important to
warrant publishing something in the journal. Legal advice will then be essential.
– If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted an adequate investigation
of a serious accusation, they may feel that publication of a notice in the journal is
warranted. Legal advice will be essential.
– Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious
misconduct.
• Less Serious Misconduct:
– Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve employers in less serious cases of
misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to
declare conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence may speak for itself, although it
may be wise to appoint an independent expert.
– Editors should remember that accusations of even minor misconduct may have
serious implications for the author(s), and it may then be necessary to ask the
employers to investigate.
– Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor
misconduct.
– If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions outlines
as under
A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there appears to be a
genuine misunderstanding of principles.
A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
118 7 Publication Ethics

Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution

responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature,
informing other editors and the indexing authorities.
Reporting the case to the General Medical Council, or other such authority or
organization which can investigate and act with due process.

The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

The world association of medical editors (WAME) is an international virtual organization

of editors of medical journals. It was launched on March 16, 1995 in Bellagio, Lombardy,
Italy after a 3 days conference. It has more than 2000 members worldwide. The idea of a
world association of medical editors (WAME) germinated in the early 1990s out of
concerns that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, the
Vancouver group) as a very small, self-serving, and exclusive and that biomedical journal
editors around the world needed help in developing high-quality, peer-reviewed journals.
In accordance, Suzanne and Robert Fletcher (editors of Annals of Internal Medicine at the
time) spearheaded the preparation of an application to hold a conference at the Rockefeller
Foundation Conference and Study Center in Bellagio, Italy, to consider the needs of
medical journal editors globally and to devise a plan to meet those needs. The foundation
approved the application in early 1994, and in March the following year, 22 participants
from 13 countries met in Bellagio to consider the following:

• What are the common purposes of medical journal editors and the set of skills editors
need to achieve these purposes?
• What day-to-day obstacles and challenges do medical editors encounter in trying to
achieve their goals?
• Is there a need for global organization of medical journal editors? If so, how can it be
established, and how can medical journal editors create a global electronic communica-
tion network to discuss goals and needs and share information, ideas, and solutions?
• How can medical journal editors use their position to promote high-quality medical
science, medical practice, and health in their regions and throughout the world?

After considering the goals of biomedical journals, the group outlined the challenges
globally facing biomedical journal editors, peer-reviewed biomedical journals, and scien-
tific publishing. As a result, it proposed the:

creation of a global organization of editors of peer-reviewed journals, to be called the World

Association of Medical Editors . . . to facilitate worldwide cooperation among editors of peer-
reviewed medical journals to enhance the exchange of educational information; to improve
7 The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) 119

editorial standards; to promote the professionalism of medical editing through education, self-
criticism and self-regulation; to expand the voice of and influence of medical editors; to
develop mutual support; and to encourage research on the principles and practices of medical
editing so as to improve the quality of medical science and practice.

WAME’s modus operandi in short term were to:

• develop a global electronic communications network;

• develop an easily accessible library of key resources for health sciences editors;
• create a global directory of medical journals and their editors;
• obtain funding to initiate the organization;
• plan for periodic world congresses of WAME;
• to establish close liaison with existing editor groups;
• to work with emerging regional groups of medical editors;
• to establish relationships with world organizations to explore collaborative initiatives;
• cooperate with the organizers of the International Congresses on Peer Review.

During early phase (1995–1997), WAME’s fundamental goal had been to facilitate
continuing communication between editors without the possibly crippling expense for
many of holding regular conventions or conferences. Hence, with the generous assistance
of the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, a listserv originally to enable
communication among the founding members was expanded so that individual members
can communicate with the entire membership unless individual members choose other-
wise. With the listserv, editors around the world can ask their colleagues for assistance or
information about problems, be they with authors, reviewers, or publishers. In one notable
episode, after the US Department of the Treasury determined that editing a research paper
from an embargoed country is equivalent to providing a service to authors and therefore
violates US trade restrictions, the members responded so vehemently that WAME created a
policy statement deploring the restriction. Later, the New York Times reported that the
department had backed down. As a result, the messages are monitored and WAME has
developed a code of conduct for members (wame.org/wametalk.htm). By 1999, WAME
had established its Website wame.org. It had also attracted 367 members and funding from
several journals and other agencies. Nevertheless, members of the board of directors
considered that further planning was essential to ensure WAME’s continuing viability.
Therefore, the directors prepared and submitted a new proposal to the Rockefeller Founda-
tion to hold another conference to map out a strategy for WAME’s continued development.
After approval of the proposal, 20 editors from 12 countries on five continents met in
Bellagio in January 2001. The group was able to achieve four goals:

• A statement of principles on the standards of professionalism and responsibilities of

editors.
• Agreement to assess the extent to which these principles are reflected in practice and to
explore barriers to their adoption, using data from a survey and focus groups.
120 7 Publication Ethics

• Development of an online program for distance learning, targeted at new editors, and a
plan for formal evaluation of the program.
• Agreement to support regional initiatives to strengthen local editorial capacity.

The administration of WAME follows a traditional model much like that of the Council
of Science Editors (CSE), and the bylaws of WAME were modeled after those of CSE. The
board comprises an executive committee president, past president, vice-president, secre-
tary, and treasurer—and five directors. The executive committee meets by teleconference
every 2 months to manage routine matters and to consider statements of policy resulting
from issues or queries from members and other organizations wame.org/wamestmt.htm. At
the discretion of the president, the executive committee may consult the directors and
committees on editorial issues or matters of WAME policy. Six committees report regu-
larly to the board. The chairs of each committee recruit committee members at their
discretion. The Education Committee has established a syllabus for potential and new
biomedical journal editors—wame.org/syllabus.htm—and a list of resources on the
WAME Website. The syllabus provides a comprehensive outline of journal editor’s
responsibilities, what to look for before accepting an editorship, the editorial process,
and a number of useful information sources. The resources section—wame.org/rsources.
htm—provides useful links to other websites like policies of organizations, books and
monographs, journal resources, ethics resources on the Web, journal instructions for
authors, and other organizations for editors. The Editorial Policy Committee, after consul-
tation with other committees and the board, has created several policy statements, which
reflect major issues discussed on the WAME listserv, issues emanating from the mass
media or government, or queries from members of WAME. Topics of the policy statements
include:

• Publication-ethics policies for medical journals.

• Impact factor.
• Geopolitical intrusion on editorial decisions.
• Responsibilities of medical editors.
• Regional workshops for medical editors.
• Journal’s role in managing conflict of interest related to the funding of research.
• Free journal access for poor nations.
• Editorial independence.

The Electronics Committee is responsible for developing and maintaining the WAME
Website—wame.org—with the gracious continuing support and hard work of the editors
and staff at The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). The committee is
committed to improving the site by making it more interactive and by continuing to add
useful resources or links for biomedical journal editors. The Ethics Committee has been
responsible for developing recommendations for ethical policies for medical journals and
Web resources on ethics wame.org/ethics.htm. It has been very active in considering ethical
7 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) 121

issues in publication. The common scenario is that a WAME member presents a case for
consideration by the Ethics Committee, which, if appropriate, then submits the case,
without identifying the participants, to the entire membership through the WAME listserv
for rapid comment.

International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE)

The International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) was founded in
August 2007 by Jason Roberts and Taylor Bowen, Alice Ellingham, Ira Salkin, Gary
Bryan, Elizabeth Blalock, Jennifer Deyton, Julie Nash, Wendy Krank, Katherine DyReyes,
Anne Carter, Jane Moody, Laura Lawrie, Alison Alsmeyer, Lindsay Haddon, Nicki
Salcedo, and Kristen Overstreet in New Jersey. ISMTE serves a unique niche within the
academic, scientific, medical, technical, and professional publishing industry—editorial
office staff. ISMTE connects, educates, and provides resources for professionals who are
passionate about the operations of peer-reviewed publications. Through the newsletter,
discussion forum, online resources, and meetings, it connects us with others in the
profession. ISMTE provides networking and training infrastructure, to establish best
practices, and study and report on editorial office practices. It is a unique community for
managing and technical editors at scholarly publications worldwide that combines net-
working, training, and industry-proven best practices allowing them to engage with other
professionals, broaden their day-to-day skills, and be proud of the journals they produce.
ISMTE has established an Industry Advisory Board comprised of respected leaders in the
scientific publishing field. ISMTE consults members of the IAB on industry concerns and
how ISMTE can best serve its members. The mission of ISMTE is to connect the
community of professionals committed to the peer review and publication of academic
and scholarly journals. ISMTE provides peer-to-peer networking, education and training,
research and resources for best practices, and development of journal policy. The society
has been governed by a volunteer board of directors. Editorial Office News (EON) is the
official publication of ISMTE. The publication is comprised of informative articles and
columns on editorial roles and best practices, as well as society news such as meeting
announcements and reports, messages from the President, and upcoming events. A member
benefit, the ISMTE publication has published 10–12 issues per year continuously since
January 2008.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) is an international,

nongovernmental, nonprofit organization in official collaboration/relationship with World
Health Organization (WHO). It was founded under the auspices of WHO and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural and Organization (UNESCO) in 1949 in
122 7 Publication Ethics

Geneva, Switzerland. CIOMS, in association with WHO, undertook its work on ethics in
biomedical research in the late 1970s. Accordingly, CIOMS set out, in cooperation with
WHO, to prepare guidelines. The aim of the guidelines was (and still is) to provide
internationally vetted ethical principles and detailed commentary on how universal ethical
principles should be applied, with particular attention to conducting research in
low-resource settings. The outcome of the CIOMS/WHO collaboration was entitled Pro-
posed International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human
Subjects. The period that followed saw the outbreak of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and
proposals for large-scale trials of prevention and treatment for the disease. These
developments raised new ethical issues that had not been considered in the preparation
of the Proposed Guidelines. There were other factors also—rapid advances in medicine and
biotechnology, changing research practices such as multinational field trials, experimenta-
tion involving vulnerable population groups, and also a new perspective in both high- and
low-resource settings, that research involving humans could be beneficial to participants
rather than threatening.
After 1993, ethical issues arose for which the 1993 CIOMS Guidelines had no specific
provisions. They related mainly to externally sponsored clinical trials carried out in
low-resource settings. In particular, the use of comparators other than an established
effective intervention used in low-resource settings became a concern. Commentators
took opposing sides on this issue. This debate necessitated the revision and updating of
the 1993 Guidelines. In 2003 CIOMS constituted a core group to consider how the existing
ethical guidance for epidemiological studies should be updated. Intending to ensure that
ethical principles are consistently applied to all types of research, the core group decided to
prepare a Supplement to the 2002 document that would address the special features of
epidemiological studies. In February 2006, a draft of the supplement was posted on the
CIOMS website and opened to comment from interested parties. During its annual meeting
in 2009 the Executive Committee of CIOMS considered the desirability of a revision of the
CIOMS Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research. In 2011, the CIOMS Executive
Committee decided to set up a Working Group to revise the CIOMS Guidelines and
fund the work from internal means. This Group met three times each year from September
2012 until September 2015. The Working Group decided to broaden the scope of the 2002
Guidelines from “biomedical research” to “health-related research.” The CIOMS
Guidelines have always been written in collaboration with WHO.
For the current guidelines, the nature and scope of this collaboration were better defined
with a joint decision to follow recommendations of the WHO Guidelines Review Commit-
tee (GRC). This includes:

• a description of the process of revision, prior to revision;

• ensuring that the working group is global in representation and includes regional
balance and representation of all stakeholders;
• a clear process for reporting and managing conflicts of interests;
7 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) 123

• providing information on the process of evidence retrieval and synthesis for the revision
of the Guidelines;
• ensuring an independent external peer review of the final product.

In June 2014 the Working Group organized a symposium during the 12th World
Congress of the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) in Mexico City during
which key issues were presented and opened for discussion. This session served as one
element of the international consultation process for the proposed revision of the CIOMS
Guidelines. In November 2014 the draft revision was discussed at the Forum of Ethical
Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP) in Manila in a
plenary session with more than 800 attendees. The revision was also discussed at the
Advancing Research Ethics Training in Southern Africa (ARESA) Seminar on 17–-
18 September 2015 in Cape Town and at CENTRES (Clinical Ethics Network & Research
Ethics Support), in Singapore in November 2015.
The ethical justification for undertaking health-related research involving humans is its
scientific and social value: the prospect of generating the knowledge and the means
necessary to protect and promote people’s health. Patients, health professionals,
researchers, policymakers, public health officials, pharmaceutical companies, and others
rely on the results of research for activities and decisions that impact individual and public
health, welfare, and the use of limited resources. Therefore, researchers, sponsors, research
ethics committees, and health authorities must ensure that proposed studies are scientifi-
cally sound, build on an adequate prior knowledge base, and are likely to generate valuable
information. Although scientific and social values are the fundamental justification for
undertaking research, researchers, sponsors, research ethics committees, and health
authorities have a moral obligation to ensure that all research is carried out in ways that
uphold human rights, respect, protect, and are fair to study participants and the
communities in which the research is conducted. Scientific and social value cannot legiti-
mate subjecting study participants or host communities to mistreatment, or injustice.
Sponsors, researchers, governmental authorities, research ethics committees, and other
stakeholders must ensure that the benefits and burdens of research are equitably distributed.
Groups, communities, and individuals invited to participate in research must be selected for
scientific reasons and not because they are easy to recruit because of their compromised
social or economic position or their ease of manipulation. Because categorical exclusion
from research can result in or exacerbate health disparities, the exclusion of groups in need
of special protection must be justified. Groups that are unlikely to benefit from any
knowledge gained from the research should not bear a disproportionate share of the risks
and burdens of research participation. Groups that are under-represented in medical
research should be provided appropriate access to participate.
To justify imposing any research risks on participants in health research, the research
must have social and scientific value. Before inviting potential participants to join a study,
the researcher, sponsor, and the research ethics committee must ensure that risks to
participants are minimized and appropriately balanced in relation to the prospect of
124 7 Publication Ethics

potential individual benefit and the social and scientific value of the research. The potential
individual benefits and risks of research must be evaluated in a two-step process. First, the
potential individual benefits and risks of each individual research intervention or procedure
in the study must be evaluated as:

• For research interventions or procedures that have the potential to benefit participants,
risks are acceptable if they are minimized and outweighed by the prospect of potential
individual benefit and the available evidence suggests that the intervention will be at
least as advantageous, in the light of foreseeable risks and benefits, as any established
effective alternative.
• For research interventions or procedures that offer no potential individual benefits to
participants, the risks must be minimized and appropriate in relation to the social and
scientific value of the knowledge to be gained (expected benefits to society from the
generalizable knowledge).
• When it is not possible or feasible to obtain the informed consent of participants,
research interventions or procedures that offer no potential individual benefits must
pose no more than minimal risks.

In the second step, the aggregate risks and potential individual benefits of the entire
study must be assessed and must be considered appropriate as:

• The aggregate risks of all research interventions or procedures in a study must be

considered appropriate in light of the potential individual benefits to participants and
the scientific social value of the research.
• The researcher, sponsor, and research ethics committee must also consider risks to
groups and populations, including strategies to minimize these risks.
• The potential individual benefits and risks of research studies must be evaluated in
consultation with the communities to be involved in the entire research process.

As a general rule, the research ethics committee must ensure that research participants in
the control group of a trial of a diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive intervention receive an
established effective intervention. Public accountability is necessary for realizing the social
and scientific value of health-related research. Therefore, researchers, sponsors, research
ethics committees, funders, editors, and publishers have an obligation to comply with
recognized publication ethics for research and its results. Researchers should prospectively
register their studies, publish the results, and share the data on which these results are based
in a timely manner. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results of all studies
should be published or otherwise be made publicly available. Any publication or report
resulting from a research study should indicate which research ethics committee has
authorized the study. The primary goal of health-related research is to generate, in ethically
appropriate ways, the knowledge necessary to promote people’s health. However,
researchers, research institutions, sponsors, research ethics committees, and policymakers
7 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 125

have other interests that can conflict with the ethical conduct of research. Such conflicts
between the primary goal of health-related research and secondary interests are defined as
conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest can influence the choice of research questions and
methods, recruitment and retention of participants, interpretation and publication of data,
and the ethical review of research. It is therefore necessary to develop and implement
policies and procedures to identify, mitigate, eliminate, or otherwise manage such conflicts
of interest. Research institutions, researchers, and research ethics committees should take
the following steps:

• Research institutions should develop and implement policies and procedures to mitigate
conflicts of interest and educate their staff about such conflicts;
• Researchers should ensure that the materials submitted to a research ethics committee
include a disclosure of interests that may affect the research;
• Research ethics committees should evaluate each study in light of any disclosed interests
and ensure that appropriate means of mitigation are taken in case of a conflict of interest;
• Research ethics committees should require their members to disclose their own interests
to the committee and take appropriate means of mitigation in case of a conflict of
interest.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is a small professional

working group of general medical journal editors whose participants meet annually and
fund their own work on the recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and
publication of scholarly work in medical journals in 2001 at a conference in Berlin. The
current members of the ICMJE are Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal,
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Deutsches Ärzteblatt (German Medical Jour-
nal), Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical
Association), Journal of Korean Medical Science, New England Journal of Medicine,
New Zealand Medical Journal, The Lancet, Revista Médica de Chile (Medical Journal of
Chile), Ugeskrift for Laeger (Danish Medical Journal), the U.S. National Library of
Medicine, the World Association of Medical Editors, etc. A large number of journals
follow the ICMJE Recommendations. A list of journals have contacted the ICMJE to
request listing as a publication that follows the ICMJE Recommendations. There may be
journals that follow the ICMJE recommendations that do not appear on this list. Users
should also be aware that individual publications and their editors may have individual
interpretations of and implementation of ICMJE Recommendations. The ICMJE cannot
verify how closely listed journals follow the many specific recommendations contained
within the ICMJE recommendations. If authors have questions about a particular journal to
which they are considering submitting their work, they should consult the “Information for
Authors” or the editorial office of that journal.
126 7 Publication Ethics

The European Association of Science Editors (EASE)

The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of

individuals and associations from diverse backgrounds, linguistic traditions, and profes-
sional experiences in science communication and editing. It is an international community
of editors from diverse backgrounds, linguistic traditions, and professional experience who
share an interest in science communication and editing. EASE was formed in May 1982 at
Pau, France, from the European Life Science Editors’ Association (ELSE) and the
European Association of Earth Science Editors (Editerra). ELSE was known first by the
unwieldy name “European Association of Editors of Biological Periodicals” and came into
being in 1968, with encouragement from UNESCO. Luckily the name was changed to
ELSE at the first General Assembly in 1970. Editerra (born 1968, also with UNESCO
encouragement) and ELSE soon began to cooperate closely. We welcome members from
every corner of the world and have membership in every continent. EASE works in
collaboration with a variety of organizations around the world to develop and endorse
guidelines and good practice. The EASE mission is to improve the global standard and
quality of science editing by promoting the value of science editors and supporting
professional development, research, and collaboration. The three strategic pillars around
which we focus our activities are as follows:

• To Improve Global Standards:

– Provide expertise and endorsement;
– Provide representation;
– Provide participation and consultation;
– Undertake research;
– Share and promote research and good practice advice.
• To Raise the Profile of Science Editors:
– Participate in editorial and publishing initiatives;
– Advocate on behalf of editors;
– Promote skills and knowledge of EASE members;
– Publish research and information on editing.
• To Support Professional Development:
– Provide and share resources;
– Provide networking and learning opportunities;
– Provide skills and knowledge recognition for members;
– Increase access to training.
7 Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues 127

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest such
as patient’s welfare or the validity of research may be influenced by a secondary interest
such as financial gain. Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts
of interest. Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose interests that might appear
to affect their ability to present or review work objectively. These might include relevant
financial interests, for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, or
speaker’s fees, or personal, political, or religious interests. Strict policies preventing people
with conflicts of interest from publishing might encourage authors to conceal relevant
interests and might therefore be counterproductive as under:

• Journal editors, board members, and staff who are involved with decisions about
publication should declare their interests.
• Journals should consider publishing these on their website and updating them as
required, as well as disclosing how conflicts of interest were managed for specific
papers.
• Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed, including the period that these
statements should cover.
• Editors should ask authors to describe relevant funding, including the purpose of the
funding (for example, travel grant and speaker’s fees), and to describe relevant patents,
stocks, and shares that they own.
• Editors should publish author’s conflicts of interest whenever they are relevant, or a
statement of their absence. If there is doubt editors should opt in favor of greater
disclosure.
• If authors state that there are no conflicts of interest, editors should publish a confirma-
tion to this effect.
• Editors should manage peer reviewer’s conflicts of interest. An invitation to review a
manuscript should be accompanied by a request for the reviewer to reveal any potential
conflicts of interest and a request for the peer reviewer to disqualify or recuse themselves
when these are relevant.
• When editors, members of editorial boards, and other editorial staff are presented with
papers where their own interests may be perceived to impair their ability to make an
unbiased editorial decision, they should withdraw from discussions, deputize decisions,
or suggest that authors seek publication in a different journal.

Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues

The Council of Science Editors presents discussion of editorial independence in its white
paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. The relationship between
the editor and the journal owner and publisher should be set out in a formal contract. It may
128 7 Publication Ethics

be useful to establish a mechanism to resolve disputes before one is needed in order to help
resolve any disagreements speedily. Journal owners (whether learned societies or
publishers) should avoid influencing editorial decisions as under:

• Editor’s decisions about whether to publish individual manuscripts submitted to their

journal should not be influenced by pressure from the editor’s employer, the journal
owner, or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of editorial independence should be set
out in the editor’s contract.
• It is appropriate for journal owners/publishers to discuss general editorial processes and
policies with journal editors (for example, whether or not a journal should publish a
particular type of article), but they should not get involved in decisions made by the
editor about individual articles.

It feels impossible to completely insulate editorial decisions from issues that may
influence them, such as commercial considerations. For example, editors will know
which articles are likely to attract offprint or reprint sales. Even so, it can be suggested
that editors, journal owners, and publishers establish processes that minimize the risk of
editorial decisions being influenced by commercial, personal, or political factors. Editors
should be free to judge all submissions on their scholarly merit and on their potential
importance to the community that the journal serves. Editorial decisions about individual
papers should remain separate from the sale of advertising. Journals that publish special
issues, supplements, or similar material that is funded by third-party organizations should
establish policies for how these are handled. The funding organization should not be
allowed to influence the selection or editing of submissions, and all funded items should
be clearly identified. Journals should establish policies so that editorial decisions cannot be
influenced by payment of an open-access-article publication charge or other type of
payment made by authors.

Review Questions

1. What is publication ethics in scientific community?

2. What are the policies and duties of an editor in order to maintain publication ethics?
3. What are the functions of committee on publication ethics to maintain the moral in
publications?
4. Explain the peer-review process in COPE.
5. How would you deal with misconduct in COPE?
6. What do you know about the world association of medical editors?
7. Give details of WAME’s modus operandi.
8. Which were the goals achieved by WAME?
9. Which topics of the policy statements include by WAME?
Further Reading 129

10. Write Short Notes on the following:

(a) International Society of Managing and Technical Editors
(b) Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
(c) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(d) European Association of Science Editors
(e) Conflict of Interest

Further Reading

Bogdanovik G (2003) Publication ethics: the editor author relationship. Institute of Oncology
Sremska Kamenica, Sremska Kamenica
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (1999) Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE
report
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016) International ethical
guidelines for health-related research involving humans, 4th edn. Council for International
Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), Geneva
Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Massachusetts
Higgins C (2011) The good life of teaching: an ethics of professional practice. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, West Sussex
Johnson AG, Johnson PRV (2007) Making sense of medical ethics: a hands-on guide. Oxford
University Press, New York
Salzano FM, Hurtado AM (2004) Lost paradises and the ethics of research and publication. Oxford
University Press, New York
Squires BP, Fletcher SW (2005) The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME): thriving in its
first decade. Science Editor 28(1):13
Uhm C-S (2016) What is research misconducts? Publication ethics is as important as research
integrity. Korean Society of Microscopy, Seoul
Vervaart P (2014) Ethics in online publications. JIFCC 25(3):244–251
Wiley Network (2018) Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics. Wiley, New York http://
exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines
Publication Misconduct
8

Overview

Most of the scientific research is conducted properly and reported honestly but a few
authors invent or manipulate data to reach fraudulent conclusions. Other types of miscon-
duct include deliberately providing incomplete or improperly processed data, failure to
follow ethical procedures, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of patient confidenti-
ality, improper award or denial of authorship, failure to declare competing interests,
duplicate submission, and plagiarism. Editors, peer reviewers, and publishers may also
act wrongly. Good practice guidelines are available from the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors and the Council of Science Editors, amongst others. The Commit-
tee on Publication Ethics provides flowcharts to assist editor’s deal with authorial miscon-
duct. The general public expects scientists, researchers, clinicians, and journal editors to be
honest and trustworthy. Failure to live up to these ideals can result in science being
corrupted, patients harmed and financial sponsors deceived. The majority of research is
conducted properly and reported honestly, a depressing series of scandals shows that there
is a dishonest minority. In the worst cases, data have been invented or manipulated to reach
fraudulent conclusions. But there are also lesser or more subtle degrees of scientific and
publication misconduct. The categories of scientific and publication misconduct reported to
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) from 1998 to date are as under:

• Carelessly or deliberately permitting basic faults in study design, performance, or

documentation which may prejudice the findings;
• Failure to follow accepted ethical procedures when involving live subjects (animal as
well as humans), such as conducting experiments on human subjects without properly
informed consent or on animals without regard to national regulations;

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 131
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_8
132 8 Publication Misconduct

• Breaches of patient confidentiality or failure to obtain informed consent to take part in

research (or for permission to submit case reports);
• Inadequate or partial disclosure of how data were obtained and analyzed with explana-
tion for any exclusions;
• Electronic manipulation of images in such a way as to significantly change how they are
interpreted;
• Improper award of authorship (all authors should have made significant contributions to
the conception, design, analysis, or reporting of the study and no such author may be
excluded from final attribution);
• Failure to declare any competing interest, especially financial, which might bias a
study’s conclusions or lead readers to doubt the conclusions;
• Attempts at redundant or duplicate publication;
• Breach of copyright and plagiarism.

Misconduct by Editors, Publishers, and Peer-Reviewers

Authors are not the only ones who might be declared guilty of misconduct in publication.
Editors, publishers, and peer reviewers also have equal responsibilities to finalize the
publication. Peer reviewers have a duty of confidentiality during prepublication, they
have a duty not to allow professional or personal jealousy or rivalry to influence or
determine the advice they offer the editors and they have a duty not to cause undue delay
to the processing of a submitted paper. Editors have a prime duty to their readers to
maintain the integrity of the scientific record. This must take precedence over their other
duties to make sure their journal is readable and profitable (or, at least not a financial burden
for the society, academic institution, governmental body, or publisher to whom they are
responsible). As a result, they should follow good practice guidelines, such as those
published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or the
Council of Science Editors (CSE), etc. Important functions include correcting significant
inaccuracies or misleading reports by publishing corrections; ensuring that proper ethical
standards have been followed in the conduct of research or clinical practice forming part of
submitted or published papers and paying strict regard to patient confidentiality. Editors
can access advise from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) by way of flowcharts
devised from the organization’s experience over 8 years of handling allegations of miscon-
duct. If a satisfactory explanation cannot be supplied by authors, then editors should
normally report any reasonable concerns about research misconduct to their institution
(s) or those who funded their study so that they can investigate and publish a notice of
concern where the initial case looks strong, followed by retraction when there is a finding
of fraud or a major error which, if left to stand, would significantly distort the scientific
record. Editors and their publishers must make sure that their journal is open and transpar-
ent in its instructions to authors (advice to contributors), especially with regard to describ-
ing the peer-review process as well as its definitions for authorship and requirements for
8 Types of Publication Misconduct 133

declaration of competing interests. They should have a well-defined appeals procedure and
an independently supervised complaints process. Publishers themselves cannot escape
responsibility, if only because they may be required to investigate and adjudicate on
complaints against editors or editorial boards. Some publishers have accepted that respon-
sibility. Publishers should not attempt to interfere with editorial freedom unless there are
exceptional circumstances whereby an editorial board or other responsible body produces
cogent evidence that an editor has misused that freedom.

Types of Publication Misconduct

There are many types and phases of misconduct in publication process. The international
models for responding to misconduct are discussed by the council of science editors in their
recommendations for identification of misconduct and guidelines for action. The World
Association of Medical editors make suggestions about responding to allegations of
misconduct. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, written during the Second
World congress on Research integrity, presents “principles and professional
responsibilities that are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken.”
Members of journal publishing teams have an important role to play in addressing potential
cases of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research,
biased reporting, authorship abuse, redundant or duplicate publication, and undeclared
conflicts of interest. The common types of publication misconduct are:

• Submission of Fraudulent Data: An editor or associate editor while processing a paper

may be suspicious that the results are too good to be true but without specific expertise in
the topic, he/she cannot be certain about reality of the work. Statistical analysis of a
research paper sometimes demonstrates that the data must have been manipulated.
Likewise, reviewers sometimes express concerns about the honesty of a research
paper. There have been numerous high-profile cases of fraudulent data being presented
in the work. The extent of fraudulent research data is not known, although many
experienced editors believe that undiscovered fraud is much more common than is
supposed. It is rarely easy to detect. Fraudulent papers may corrupt future research by
others as they continue to be cited. Publication of fraudulent research, apart from being
intrinsically dishonest, may distort the scientific record, divert resources to projects
doomed to failure as they are predicated on the false data and, ultimately harm patients.
• Incomplete or Improperly Processed Data: The reliability of the scientific record can
be disturbed by conduct far short of fraud. As an example, it is commonplace that
inconvenient data are sometimes excluded from a study or that the most advantageous
statistical analysis is performed, especially if the results can be used, to increase
prescribing rates or enhance the chance of further research funding. Publication bias
can distort the record when it results in a greater likelihood that positive studies will be
published and negative studies rejected. This form of misconduct is as much the
134 8 Publication Misconduct

responsibility of editors as it is that of authors. One systematic review of studies

comparing methodological quality and outcome according to the source of funding
showed that research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies is less likely to be
published than that funded otherwise, that company sponsored research is not of
lower quality and that findings are more likely to be favorable to the product
investigated. This begs the question of where are the negative studies? Hopefully this
form of manipulation will be lessened by the recently adopted requirement for trial
registration which might allow future investigators to uncover unpublished trials for
inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Reporting guidelines are available
for many different kinds of study. Not all journals require adherence but good practice
implies that authors have taken account of the criteria within these guidelines. When
reporting observational studies in epidemiology, authors are advised to follow the
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)
guidelines and meta-analyses are covered by the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. In basic science, as opposed to epidemiology
and most clinical research, an emerging problem is that of the improper manipulation of
images. Computer programs permit images to be sharpened, the colors changed or the
boundaries altered. Questions may arise as to how extensive this manipulation is
permissible before the data should be regarded as corrupted.
• Breaches of Confidentiality and Patient/Subject Consent: The International Com-
mittee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines state that all patients have a right
to privacy, which should not be infringed without informed consent. It adds that
identifying details should be omitted if inessential. Journal editors vary in how closely
they follow this guidance. An exception may be made if the author has attempted to
contact the patient but found it impossible, if either has moved or if the former can no
longer access case notes. Even then the journals demand that the public interest in
publishing the study must outweigh any possible harm that might befall patients if they
are identified. This can pose problems, such as how to disguise photographs to make
them unidentifiable. Many journals are now placing their historic archives online; in
previous years, sensitivities were not so great so patient identification was common.
Editors and peer reviewers should understand also that submitted papers remain confi-
dential until published. Reviewers should not pass on papers to others to read without
the editor’s permission, reveal details, use information in lectures nor use the
prepublication data to inform their own research. Editors are in the same position and
must make sure that their instructions to peer reviewers are clear about these matters.
Authors and editors must also take care that proper consent was given for the original
study. In general, this task is undertaken by the authors stating that local ethical
committee or institutional review board (IRB) consent was applied for and given.
Problems may arise for editors when considering papers from countries which may
not yet have high-quality IRBs. Many editors will decline to process such papers but
others may be less restrictive.
8 Types of Publication Misconduct 135

• Authorship Issues Raised: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

(ICMJE) criteria for authorship state that all persons designated as authors should
qualify and each should have participated sufficiently to take public responsibility for
the contents. An individual cannot be included if he/she has not made a substantial
contribution to the conception or design of the trial or to the analysis and interpretation
of the data or to drafting the article or revising it for intellectual content as well as final
approval. Journals should make clear in their instructions to authors what criteria they
will apply when assessing authorship or contributorship, as some journals prefer. When
an editor is made aware of disputes between authors or groups of authors’
prepublication, it will be the best not to accept the paper until the protagonists have
settled their dispute. An exception might be when it is alleged that a particular author is
deliberately refusing to cooperate in order to prevent or delay publication, perhaps
because of personal antipathy to one or more colleagues. One survey in India of
corresponding authors of papers published in 300 large-circulation general journals
and 400 specialist journals showed that 32% of articles had honorary authors and
41% ghost authors. The European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) has published
guidelines which include a statement on such writer’s professional responsibilities in
ensuring that papers they write are scientifically valid and produced in accordance with
generally acceptable ethical standards.
• Competing Interests: Editors may favor certain topics over others because of belief
they might catch the eye of the public media and so lead to the editor’s name being better
known to the profession and the public. Reviewers may be tempted to allow personal
grievances or favors to affect their judgment. Good practice demands that, as far as
possible, competing interests are subsumed by the need to be objective and fair. In
defining what might be a significant competing interest, one suggestion is that if it were
later revealed, readers might feel misled or deceived. The most serious is likely to be
financial or commercial but personal and political conflicts can affect judgment. Finan-
cial interests may include being paid by the sponsor of a research project to undertake
the work, or receiving reimbursement for lecture or travel. Holding stock or share
ownership, consultancies, and holding or seeking patent rights in any product or device
can also be regarded as a competing interest. The journals should require all authors to
sign a declaration on submission of any competing interest. Editors and reviewers
should also make it clear if a competing interest may affect their work. It is better to
decline to undertake a review or transfer a submitted paper to another member of the
editorial team if there is any risk of being perceived as biased.
• Redundant and Duplicate Publication: Because of the professional necessity or
importance of having one’s research published, authors may be tempted to produce
several papers from one dataset. There may be good reasons for this, which do not
represent publication misconduct in any way. The results of a study may have different
implications for differing professional or specialist groups. A study may, of course, be
redundant before it starts. Where a subject has been thoroughly and convincingly
elucidated, some find it questionable whether resources and, more importantly, the
136 8 Publication Misconduct

contribution of patients or subjects, might be misused by repeating the study.

Researchers need to consider this before designing their trial. Any attempt at duplicate
publication, that is sending the same or very similar findings from the same study to
more than one journal is misconduct. Firstly, the second submission may involve
intellectual theft as the journal which first published the study may hold copyright or
a license which only allows the author to use the material with permission. More
importantly, duplicated papers may have a significant effect on systematic reviews
and meta-analyses if the same data are counted twice.
• Plagiarism Issue: Using the words or ideas of another person without attribution
represents intellectual theft or plagiarism. Authors must realize that, when quoting the
work of others, they must make it clear and provide a reference to the original material.
With the advent of electronic searching and the increasing use of systematic reviews,
plagiarism comes to light more easily in the past. It is also possible to self-plagiarize; as
an example, it is not unknown for authors invited to write a review article to recycle their
own previous work. In doing so it would be more honest to advise the editor in advance
that they have done so. Many editors would regard this as improper, especially if the
author has been commissioned (and paid) for writing a review.
Editors can help educate about and prevent plagiarism (as well as redundant or
duplicate publication) by screening submitted manuscripts. Journals should explain in
their instructions to authors how submitted manuscripts are screened for duplicated text
and possible plagiarism. Cross-check is one of the screening services available for this
purpose. Journals may consider the following text, adapted from the cross-check
website. To find out more about cross-check visit http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck.
html.

Human Rights, Privacy, and Confidentiality

For manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human participants, it is suggested

that journals require authors to provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that
approved the study, and that the study conforms to recognized standards. Across the
scholarly disciplines there are variations in practice around privacy and confidentiality,
relative to the risks of participation and the reasonable expectations of participants. In the
biomedical sciences, editors should consider only publishing information and images from
individual participants where the authors have obtained the individual’s free prior informed
consent. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidance says:

Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if

there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in
photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.
8 Cultures and Heritage 137

The best policy is for journals to require that authors confirm whether explicit written
consent to publish has been received from any people described, shown in still or moving
images, or whose voices are recorded. In the case of technical images (for example,
radiographs or micrographs), editors should also ensure that all information that could
identify the subject has been removed from the image. For voices or images of any human
subject, permission according to applicable national laws must be sought from research
participants before recording. In many jurisdictions it is a requirement that formal copy-
right clearance is obtained to publish any video or audio recordings. When publishing
genetic sequences or family genograms editors may need consent from more than just the
index case.
In the social sciences and humanities, there are numerous ethical guidelines for
researchers working with human participants. Social science and humanities researchers
regularly work with audio and video materials gathered in public places where there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy. They also use materials derived from broadcast sources,
as in some political science or cultural studies work, where copyright must be addressed but
where consent issues do not arise. However, wherever appropriate, social scientists are also
responsible for protecting the confidentiality of human participants, and obtaining
informed consent from all participants by openly communicating any and all information
that is likely to influence their willingness to participate (sponsorship, purpose and
anticipated outcomes, and possible consequences that publication of the research may
have for participants). Guidelines include those from the American Sociological Associa-
tion (ASA), International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE), and American Anthropological
Association (AAA). For social research data the Association of Social Anthropologists of
the UK and the commonwealth suggests in its “Ethical Guidelines for Good Research
Practice” that it is not always possible or necessary to gain written consent to publish,
particularly when researchers are working with people with limited literacy or in cultures
where formal bureaucratic procedures are problematic. However, it remains prudent for
journals to ask authors to provide evidence that they have obtained informed consent.

Cultures and Heritage

There is recognition of increasing innovation in the management of joint copyright in

relation to intercultural research, to enable appropriate legal acknowledgment of intellec-
tual property in attribution and acknowledgment. This is presented in the section on
authorship which follows. Editors should consider any sensitivity when publishing images
of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offense religious texts or historical
events. Editors should be conscious of the ethics surrounding publication of images of
human remains, and should recognize that human remains are perceived differently in
different cultures. Images of human remains should not be published without consideration
of the views of any demonstrated genealogical descendants or affiliated cultural
communities, if feasible. In cases where descendants or affiliated cultural communities
138 8 Publication Misconduct

cannot be contacted, images of human remains should not be published without consulta-
tion with and permission from the curating institution or relevant stakeholder. Cultural
restrictions do exist in some cultures that prevent publication of the names of deceased
people. In Aboriginal Australian culture, this often extends to publication of photographs
or film footage of deceased persons. Editors are encouraged to consider any sensitivity and,
if necessary, confer with the author about appropriate representation of subjects in
published work.

Registering Clinical Trials and Animals in Research

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that clinical trials should be registered
prospectively, before participants are enrolled. The International Federation of Pharmaceu-
tical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) also requires its members to register trials.
Legislation varies point to point in these matters. Medical journals that publish clinical
trials should make prospective registration a requirement for publication of such trials.
Clinical trial registration numbers should be included in all papers that report their results.
A suitable statement about this in journal instructions for authors might read:

We require that clinical trials are prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database.
Please include the name of the trial register and your clinical trial registration number at the
end of your abstract. if your trial is not registered, or was registered retrospectively, please
explain the reasons for this.

Research involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as research in
humans. Journals can encourage authors to implement the 3Rs principles suggested by
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research:

The 3Rs are a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using
animals humanely: Replacement – use of non-animal methods; Reduction – methods which
reduce the number of animals used; Refinement – methods which improve animal welfare.

As per the ethical guidelines of the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science
(ICLAS) for editors and reviewers, journals should encourage authors to adhere to animal
research reporting standards. It describes that the details which journals should require
from authors regarding study design and statistical analysis, experimental procedures,
experimental animals, housing and husbandry. Journals should ask authors to confirm
that ethical and legal approval was obtained prior to the start of the study and state the name
of the body giving the approval. Authors should also state whether experiments were
performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations.
Editors may ask authors to describe in their articles how discomfort, distress, and pain were
avoided and minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer unnecessarily at any
stage of an experiment. Editors may request that reviewer’s comment on the standard of
8 Appeals and Corrections 139

experimental reporting, experimental design, or any other aspects of the study reported that
may cause concern.

Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues

The Council of Science Editors (CSE) presents discussion of editorial independence in its
White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. The relationship
between the editor and the journal owner and publisher should be set out in a formal
contract. It may be useful to establish a mechanism to resolve disputes before one is needed
in order to help resolve any disagreements speedily. Journal owners should avoid
influencing editorial decisions. Editor’s decisions about whether to publish individual
manuscripts submitted to their journal should not be influenced by pressure from the
editor’s employer, the journal owner, or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of editorial
independence should be set out in the editor’s contract. It is appropriate for journal owners/
publishers to discuss general editorial processes and policies with journal editors, but they
should not get involved in decisions made by the editor about individual articles. It is
impossible to completely insulate editorial decisions from issues that may influence them,
such as commercial considerations. Editors should be free to judge all submissions on their
scholarly merit and on their potential importance to the community that the journal serves.
Editorial decisions about individual papers should remain separate from the sale of
advertising. Journals that publish special issues, supplements, or similar material that is
funded by third-party organizations should establish policies for how these are handled.
The funding organization should not be allowed to influence the selection or editing of
submissions, and all funded items should be clearly identified. Journals should establish
policies so that editorial decisions cannot be influenced by payment of an open-access-
article publication charge or other type of payment made by authors.

Appeals and Corrections

Journals should consider establishing and publishing a mechanism for authors to appeal
editorial decisions, to facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or unfounded
appeals. Editors should allow appeals to override earlier decisions only when new infor-
mation becomes available (like additional factual input by the authors, revisions, extra
material in the manuscript, or appeals about conflicts of interest and concerns about biased
peer review). Author protest alone should not affect decisions. Reversals of decisions
without new evidence should be avoided. Editors should mediate all exchanges between
authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. Editors may seek comments
from additional peer reviewers to help them make their final decision. Journals should state
in their guidelines that the editor’s decision following an appeal is final. Journals should
encourage readers and authors to notify them if they find errors, especially errors that could
140 8 Publication Misconduct

affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article. Journals should work
with authors and their publisher to correct important published errors. Journals should
publish corrections when important errors are found, and should consider retraction when
errors are so fundamental that they invalidate the work. Corrections arising from errors
within an article should be distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern
relating to misconduct. Corrections should be included in indexing systems and linked to
the original article. Corrections should be free to access. There is little doubt that there is
growing awareness that science needs policing. Much of the impetus has come from
individual whistleblowers, often junior colleagues who may have to put their own careers
at risk by laying information against a senior member of their department. Journal editors,
with help from reviewers and readers, are gradually finding their voice. But it is not enough
to leave the handling of publication misconduct in the hands of ad hoc bodies such as
ICJME and COPE. Governments, universities, research councils, the pharmaceutical
industry, and other funding bodies all have a duty to ensure the integrity of the scientific
record.

Violation of Publication Ethics

Scientific evidence can be considered as the base of progress of science and clinical
practice. Research findings are disseminated to the scientific community by means of
Publication. Publication ethics is the code of conduct and regulatory mechanism being
developed for the publication process of scholarly journals. Its aim is to establish and
maintain higher standards and scientific integrity. Publication ethics are violated by all
those activities which threaten the integrity of the research publication process. These
include authors’ dispute, fake affiliations, conflicts of interest, dual submissions, duplicate
publication, plagiarism, salami slicing, fabrication, and falsification. It affects the scientific
community, journal editors, peer reviewers but the ultimate victims are the patients. Journal
editors are faced by all or many of these ethical issues. However dual submissions,
duplicate publications, and plagiarism are considered to be the most concerning. The
purpose of writing this editorial was to specifically address the willful or inadvertent
dishonesty, foul play, and unethical practices by authors while submitting their manuscripts
for publication to scientific journals. It may help raise awareness in decreasing ethical
violations, promoting the publication validity and building the trust of readers on the
published material. Worldwide violation of publication ethics is a major concern. With
the increasing number of journals, the number of submitted manuscripts is also on the rise.
Similarly, increased number of violations of publication ethics are occurring and being
reported. Consequently, a significant number of articles are retracted due to research
misconduct.
If a manuscript is submitted simultaneously to two or more journals then it is called dual
submission. The editors are unable to detect the under process dual submissions. In order to
publish their manuscripts early, the authors use these kinds of unethical tactics and deceits.
8 Concept of Spin 141

The authors when came to know that their manuscript is accepted by journal X, they
withdraw it from journal Y. On top of that, they try to appear innocent and gave the reason
that the processing time of journal Y is quite long and it’s difficult for them to wait that
much longer. To further complicate the matters, if unknowingly both the journals published
that same article, it will result in research inflation without adding anything substantial to
the existing scientific knowledge.
The other serious ethical issue is that of plagiarism. It is defined as the stealing or theft of
another person’s words, ideas or results and without citation of reference source. It is
becoming more prevalent due to publish or perish environment leading to increased
publication demands. Self-plagiarism or salami slicing is also not acceptable as it is
considered manipulative. In this, one research article is broken into multiple different
manuscripts but sharing the same methodology, hypotheses or patient population. It will
lead to unfairly skewing of research database and enhanced citation record of authors. As
software applications (Turnitin and iThenticate) are now in use frequently, plagiarism can
be identified more easily. As a prerequisite from Higher Education Commission (HEC) and
University Grants Commission (UGC), we use Turnitin, a plagiarism detecting software,
for all submitted manuscripts to the JPMI. The HEC/UGC cut off or safe limit for
publication of manuscripts is less than 10%. However, it can scan only limited number
of articles or journals which are MEDLINE indexed. For the interest of the readers the
question arises why plagiarism is done by researchers? The stated reasons are lack of
confidence in write-up of manuscript, lacking basic research skills, not enough time to
complete the assignment (a busy schedule), laziness (it’s easy to do), and pressure of
publishing more papers for promotions (according to institutional policies).
Though there is no straightforward solution to these ethical issues but collective efforts
by authors, reviewers, and editors may be fruitful. Editors need to be vigilant; the more you
look, the more you find. Expert reviewers need to carefully look for potential breach of
publication ethics and bring it into the notice of journal editors. Authors need to be
educated and made aware of the problem (as being a culprit, they claim ignorance). It is
of paramount importance that they understand the boundaries of publication ethics. If these
ethical guidelines are religiously followed by authors, it will help in decreasing the
instances of violation of publication ethics with resultant increase in the credibility of
publications and in overall confidence in the integrity of clinical research.

Concept of Spin

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However,

publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis
thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their report and may be tempted to
consciously or unconsciously spin their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific
intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of
findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in the readers. This is
142 8 Publication Misconduct

based on a literature review that reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by
beautification of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on
the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some
types of spin on reader’s interpretation and research dissemination. Publication in peer-
reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. It generates knowledge,
influences future experiments, and may impact clinical practice and public health. Ethi-
cally, research results must be reported completely, transparently, and accurately. When
writing a manuscript reporting the results of an experiment, investigators usually have
broad latitude in the choice, representation, and interpretation of the data. They may be
tempted consciously or unconsciously to shape the impression that the results will have on
readers and consequently spin their study results. Spin has become a standard concept in
public relations and politics in recent decades. It is “a form of propaganda, achieved by
providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in
favor of or against some organization or public figure.” The concept of spin can also be
applied to scientific communications. Spin could be unconscious and unintentional.
Reporting results in a manuscript implies some choices about which data analyses are
reported, how data are reported, how they should be interpreted, and what rhetoric is used.
These choices, which can be legitimate in some contexts, in another context can create an
inaccurate impression of the study results. It is almost impossible to determine whether spin
is the consequence of a lack of understanding of methodologic principles, a parroting of
common practices, a form of unconscious behavior, or an actual willingness to mislead the
reader. However, spin, when it occurs, often favors the author’s vested interest (financial,
intellectual, academic, and so forth). There are several ways to spin a report. These different
practices are usually interrelated, and the amount of spin in published reports varies.
Specific classifications of spin have been developed for different study designs and
contexts [randomized controlled trials with non-statistically significant results, observa-
tional studies evaluating an intervention, diagnostic accuracy studies, and systematic
reviews]. We may report practices of spin organized under misreporting the methods,
misreporting the results, misinterpretation, and other types of spin. The classification of the
practices that may be reported here represents our chosen approach, but several different
approaches are possible. Future work based on systems to inductively code and classify
data such as spin would help to provide a rigorous and exhaustive analysis of spin that is
generalizable across the manuscripts.
One important question is whether spin matters and can actually impact reader’s
interpretations of study results. Spin can affect researchers, physicians, and even journalists
who are disseminating the results, but also the general public, who might be more
vulnerable because they are less likely to disentangle the truth. Patients who are desperately
seeking a new treatment could change their behavior after reading distorted reporting and
interpretations of research findings. Scientists are under pressure to publish, particularly in
high impact factor journals. Publication metrics, such as the number of publications,
number of citations, journal impact factor, and h-index are used to measure academic
8 Predatory Publishers and Journals 143

productivity and scientist’s influence. Spin in published reports is a significant detrimental

research practice. However, the general scientific audience may not be fully aware of this.

Predatory Publishers and Journals

A predatory publisher is an opportunistic publishing venue that exploits the academic need
to publish but offers little reward for those using their services. The academic publishers
perish scenario combined with the relative ease of website creation which created a fruitful
market for exploitation of academic authors. Some publishers are predatory on purpose,
while others may make mistakes due to neglect, mismanagement, or inexperience. While
the motivations and methods vary predatory publishers have common characteristics:

• Their primary goal is to mint money (handsome fees are to be charged for publication).
• They do not care about the quality of the work published (no or little editing or peer-
review process).
• They make false claims or promises (false claims of impact factors and indexing).
• They engage in unethical business practices (not as per advertisement).
• They fail to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly publishing.

Predatory publisher exploits a new publishing model by claiming to be legitimate open

access operation. Online predatory publishers take advantage of the Gold Open Access
model. Under this model publication charges provide publishers with income instead of
subscriptions. Predatory publishers make false claims (such as quick peer-review) to lure
unwary authors into submitting papers. While sending a predatory publisher a manuscript
may see it published there is no guarantee that it underwent peer review, is included in
indexes like Web of Science and Scopus, or that it will be available in a month much less in
5 years.
A predatory journal is a publication that actively asks research scholars/authors for
manuscripts without peer-review system or a proper editorial board and publishes bogus
research unethically against some money. Predatory journals take advantage of authors by
asking them to publish for a fee without providing peer-review or editing services. Because
predatory publishers do not follow the proper academic standards for publishing, they
usually offer a quick turnaround on publishing a manuscript. In contrast, high-quality
academic journals take longer to publish articles because they go through a proper peer
review and copyediting process. Here is a curated list of Beall’s criteria for identification of
predatory journals and publishers:

• No single individual is identified as specific journal’s editor with no formal editorial/

review board or the same editorial board for more than one journal.
• The editor and/or review board members do not have academic expertise in the journal’s
field.
144 8 Publication Misconduct

• Provides insufficient information or hides information about author fees, offering to

publish an author’s paper and later sending an unanticipated “surprise” invoice.
• No proper indexing.
• The name of a journal is unrelated with the journal’s mission.
• The name of a journal does not adequately reflect its origin (e.g., a journal with the word
“Canadian” or “Swiss” in its name when neither the publisher, editor, nor any purported
institutional affiliate relates whatsoever to Canada or Switzerland).
• The publisher has poorly maintained websites, including dead links, prominent
misspellings and grammatical errors on the website.
• The publisher makes unauthorized use of licensed images on their website, taken from
the open web, without permission or licensing from the copyright owners.
• Re-publish papers already published in other venues/outlets without providing appro-
priate credits.
• Use boastful language claiming to be a “leading publisher” even though the publisher
may only be a start-up or a novice organization.
• Provide minimal or no copyediting or proofreading of submissions.
• Publish papers that are not academic at all, e.g., essays by lay people, polemical
editorials, or pseudo-science.
• Have a “contact us” page that only includes a web form or an e-mail address, and the
publisher hides or does not reveal its location.
• The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad (e.g., Journal of Education)
or combine two or more fields not normally treated together (e.g., International Journal
of Business, Humanities and Technology) in order to attract more articles and gain more
revenue from author fees.

Before submitting the research work to a journal, we must use this checklist:

• Do you or your colleagues know the journal?

• Can you easily identify and contact the publisher?
• Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?
• Are articles indexed in services that you use?
• Is it clear what fees will be charged?
• Do you recognize the editorial board?
• Is the publisher a member of a recognized industry initiative (like COPE, DOAJ, and
OASPA)?

Review Questions

1. What do you understand by publication misconduct? Explain COPE guidelines

regarding publication misconduct.
2. What are common types of publication misconduct? Explain briefly.
Further Reading 145

3. How do human rights, privacy, and confidentiality are concerned with publication
misconduct?
4. Why legal acknowledgment of intellectual property is important in publication?
5. Why clinical trial registration numbers should be included in all research papers?
6. Why does the research involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as
research in humans?
7. Explain the relationship between the editor, the journal owner, and publisher in
publication.
8. What do you understand by spin publication? Explain briefly.
9. Define predatory publishers and their policy of publication.
10. What are Beall’s criteria for identification of predatory journals and publishers?
11. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) Improper Award of Authorship
(b) Breaches of Confidentiality
(c) Competing Interests in Publication Misconduct
(d) Clinical Trial Registration Numbers
(e) Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications
(f) Appeals and Corrections

Further Reading

Ali Z, Ali A (2008) Violation of publication ethics: a growing concern for journal editors. JPMI 3
Clark L, Kingsolver A (2002) American Anthropological Association. Ethics Committee briefing
papers. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/bp5.html
Clark L, Whiteford L (2002) American Anthropological Association. Ethics Committee briefing
papers. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/bp1.html
Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, Fiack S, Scott-Lichter D, Robinson A (2007) Best practice guidelines
on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 61(152):1–26
Marcovitch H (2007) Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit 21(6):492–499. www.
esteve.org
Parasuraman S, Raveendran R, Ahmed KKM (2015) Violation of publication ethics in manuscripts:
analysis and perspectives. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 6(2):94–97. http://www.jpharmacol.com/
printarticle.asp?issn=0976-500X
Salzano FM, Callegari-Jacques SM (1988) South American Indians: a case study in evolution.
Clarendon Press, Oxford
Salzano FM, Hurtado AM (2016) Lost paradises and the ethics of research and publication. Oxford
University Press, New York
Vervaart P (2014) Ethics in online publications. JIFCC 25(3):244–251
Willet WC (2002) Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science 296:
695–698
World Health Organization (1999) Proposed budget 2000–2001. Executive Board 103rd Session.
Agenda Item 5. EB103/INF.DOC./5
Global Intellectual Property Law
9

Overview

Globalization may be defined as a process, or a series of processes, to create and consoli-

date a unified world economy, a single ecological system and a complex and dynamic
network of communications that covers the world. The entire world is interdependent and
becoming ever more de-territorialized. Geographical, social, and political boundaries do
not disappear but they are eroding worldwide. In understanding globalization processes, an
important distinction to bear in mind is that between localized globalism and globalized
localism, which shows that globalization occurs in opposing directions often with great
tensions between the two. Localized globalism refers to the situation when local conditions
change and adapt to international and transnational influences. What is intellectual prop-
erty? In its purest sense, it is the only absolute possession in the world. As Chaffe stated,
“The man who brings out of nothingness some child of his thought has rights therein which
cannot belong to any other sort of property.” One textbook defines intellectual property
law as the “branch of the law which protects some of the finer manifestations of human
achievement.” Another book states that intellectual property law “regulates the creation,
use and exploitation of mental or creative labor.” For Spence, an intellectual property right
is a right:

• that can be treated as property;

• to control particular uses;
• of a specified type of intangible asset.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 147
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_9
148 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

In addition, intellectual property rights normally share the characteristics that they are:

• only granted when the particular intangible asset can be attributed to an individual
creator or identifiable group of creators, the creator(s) being presumptively entitled to
the right;
• enforced by both the civil and criminal law.

Intellectual property is hardly a static conception, but is in a state of constant evolution

and reconsideration. The first English and Venetian laws were public in nature, a means of
harnessing foreign technologies, or of regulating and censoring domestic printing. But by
the nineteenth century, intellectual property had become classified as a type of private law,
conferring private property rights on the few. The domestic implementation of the World
Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) Agreement is the base of legal framework of intellectual property law. This is all
rather black and white. Perhaps a more correct term would be “sustainable localized
globalism” whereby some practical local structures, norms, traditions, and practices are
retained. This would better reflect what so often happens when international laws are
interpreted in the light of local conditions. In the British colonial era, for instance, the Privy
Council always stressed that British laws had to be adapted to the local conditions. The
complex way that intellectual property law is made is subsequently traded in the form of
“you ‘buy’ our patent law and we will buy more of your wine” types of transaction, and the
contested nature of the rights granted requires us to look at the law from all perspectives
local, regional, global and also holistic. In the words of Cornish:

Intellectual property may be extended to new subject matter either by accretion or by

emulation. Accretion involves redefining an existing right so as to encompass the novel
material; emulation requires the creation of a new and distinct right by analogy drawn
more or less eclectically from the types already known

One consequence of such a multi-faceted approach is that we are bound to encounter

clashes between national, transnational, international, customary, and social-economic
rules as they relate to specific objects, works, and ideas. The current conventional wisdom
is that the world’s most successful nations are those best at producing, acquiring,
deploying, and controlling valuable knowledge. Knowledge, especially new knowledge
unavailable to one’s rivals, is key to international competitiveness and therefore to national
prosperity. However clichéd such a view may be, the fact is that many policymakers
believe it to be true and are acting accordingly. It is generally assumed that wealth-
creating knowledge of the kind that turns economies into knowledge-based ones, comes
almost exclusively out of universities, corporate laboratories and film, music, art and design
studios, and not out of such unlikely places as peasant farmer’s fields and indigenous
communities. The intellectual property spectrum consists of the following:
9 The International Law and Political Economy of Intellectual Property 149

• Patent law: This law grants protection of a limited duration to technological inventions
and other types of functional subject matter. However, creations which incorporate
functional elements can sometimes also constitute artistic works, industrial designs, and
even trademarks.
• Copyright law: This law grants a less exclusive type of protection, with a longer term of
duration for literary, artistic, and scientific creations, as well as for related works such as
performances, broadcasts, and sound recordings; a sub-category is design rights which
protects the appearance of products and often overlaps legally and conceptually with
artistic works, which technically fall under copyright law.
• Trademark law: Marks which function as signs in the marketplace are protected as
trademarks. A sub-category is the common law action of passing off, which is less
generous in protection than the wider tort of misappropriation or unfair competition.
This area has the greatest potential for overlap not only with patents or copyright laws
(especially in relation to aesthetic and functional shapes), but also with other areas of
economic torts such as privacy, confidentiality, defamation, disparagement of personal-
ity and trade, and fraud.

The International Law and Political Economy of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property rule-making has become ever more responsive to this increased
pressure, as well as to the willingness of national governments keen to enhance the
competitiveness of their economies to effectively give transnational corporations what
they want, at least most of the time. Since the 1960s and 1970s and up to the present,
developed-country intellectual property regimes have undergone some quite profound
changes. These changes are of three kinds:

• Widening of protectable subject matter, including a tendency to reduce or eliminate

exceptions. Such accretion includes the extension of copyright protection to computer
programs as if they are literary works, the application of patent protection to cover
computer programs, life forms, cells, proteins, and genes, and the removal of exclusions
on product patents for drugs.
• The creation of new rights. New systems created during the late twentieth century
included plant variety protection or plant breeder’s rights and rights to layout designs
of integrated circuits.
• The progressive standardization of the basic features of intellectual property rights. For
instance, patent regulations increasingly provide 20-year protection terms, require prior
art searches for novelty and examinations for inventive step or non-obviousness, assign
rights to the first applicant rather than the first inventor, and provide protection for
inventions in a widening range of industries and technological fields.
150 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

Lying at the heart of the international intellectual property regime is the World Intellec-
tual Property Organization (WIPO). The organization was established by the 1967 Con-
vention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization and came into existence
in 1970 when the convention entered into force. In 1974, WIPO became a United Nations
specialized agency. WIPO’s two objectives as stated in Article 3 of the Convention are:

• to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooper-
ation among states and, where appropriate, in collaboration with any other international
organization;
• to ensure administrative cooperation among the Unions.

WIPO currently administers 24 multilateral agreements. TRIPS deal with the actual
rights. These are very comprehensive and comprise the following:

• Copyright and Related Rights;

• Trademarks;
• Geographical Indications;
• Industrial Designs;
• Patents;
• Layout Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits;
• Protection of Undisclosed Information;
• Control of Anti-competitive Practices in Contractual Licenses.

Legal, Philosophical and Economic Justifications

Legal, philosophical, and economic arguments for protecting the creations, investments,
and business assets of authors, inventors, producers, and traders go back to Roman times.
Over time, intellectual property rhetoric has employed such terms as “incentive,” “reward,”
“natural rights,” “public interest,” “public goods,” “free-riding,” and “piracy.” While the
justifications and rhetoric’s vary over time and whether the justifier or critic is a creator,
investor, user, or member of the public, some of them are very persistent. The variety of
rationales and terms justifying “intellectual property” as a classification of legal rights
makes the concept very nebulous and ambivalent. Nonetheless, the highly successful
deployment of the various justifying rhetoric’s has helped to ensure a tremendous expan-
sion in the scope of intellectual property so that it now includes not only the traditional
rights of patents, copyright, trademarks, and designs, but also trade secrets, plant variety
protection, database rights, geographical indications and rights to semiconductor chip
topographies. We can argue that intellectual property subject matter must be made free
for others for a variety of reasons:
9 Legal, Philosophical and Economic Justifications 151

• the raw materials and basic building blocks of creation must be left for future
generations of creators; this would include discoveries, traditional or ancient knowl-
edge, and creative works for which the relevant intellectual property rights have expired;
• intellectual property matter which has become de facto standards to which other creators
or competitors require access;
• where intellectual property rights threaten the very existence and workings of the
“commons,” that is, the competitive market system.

It is well worth nothing at length Hegel’s final and very specific take on intellectual
property as he manages to opine on all of the following exceptions for teachers (including
law professors), plagiarism, transformative use, minor modifications on inventions, and the
perplexing case of factual anthologies:

Those engaged in the propagation of knowledge of all kinds, in particular those whose
appointed task is teaching, have as their specific function and duty (above all in the case of
the positive sciences, the doctrine of a church, the study of positive law, &c.) the repetition of
well-established thoughts, taken up as extra and all of them given expression already. The
same is true of writings devised for teaching purposes and the spread and propagation of the
sciences. Now to what extent does the new form which turns up when something is expressed
again and again transform the available stock of knowledge, and in particular the thoughts of
others who still retain external property in those intellectual productions of theirs, into a private
mental property of the individual reproducer and thereby give him or fail to give him the right
to make them his external property as well? To what extent is such repetition of another’s
material in one’s book a plagiarism? There is no precise principle of determination available to
answer these questions, and therefore they cannot be finally settled either in principle or by
positive legislation. Hence plagiarism would have to be a matter of honor and be held in check
by honor. Thus, copyright legislation attains its end of securing the property rights of author
and publisher only to a very restricted extent, though it does attain it within limits. The ease
with which we may deliberately change something in the form of what we are expounding or
invent a trifling modification in a large body of knowledge or a comprehensive theory which is
another’s work, and even the impossibility of sticking to the author’s words in expounding
something we have learnt, all lead of themselves (. . .) to an endless multiplicity of alterations
which more or less superficially stamp someone else’s property as our own. For instance, the
hundreds and hundreds of compendia, selections, anthologies, &c., arithmetic’s, geometries,
religious tracts, &c., show how every new idea in a review or annual or encyclopedia, &c., can
be forthwith repeated over and over again under the same or a different title, and yet may be
claimed as something peculiarly the writer’s own. The result of this may easily be that the
profit promised to the author, or the projector of the original undertaking, by his work or his
original idea becomes negligible or reduced for both parties or lost to all concerned.

The highlighted concepts have, in turn, over the ensuing 150 years been used to justify
many exceptions and the final statement on loss of profits can even be seen as the nascence
of the three-step test, which can be found most recently in TRIPS, prohibiting all uses
which “conflict with a normal exploitation” of a work or patent. Hegel is also prescient in
predicting that the line between misappropriation and inspiration is thin, and difficult to
152 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

draw. What is food for thought is whether future international law and policy should be
based, as he suggests, more on honor rather than on positive legislation.

Copyright

Printing technology revolutionized the social and legal infrastructure of the book market.
But it did not create the commercial book market. Commercial authors and booksellers
have existed from time immemorial. An early example of a thriving monopolistic book
trade and seller is the ubiquitous undertaker found in ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and
Assyrian ceremonies, who simultaneously arranged funerals and sold copies of the best-
selling papyrus known as the “Book of the Dead.” This document was the vital guide to
dead souls during their voyage through the next life. One view is that ancient authors had
no real shares or interest in the profits of their works as what mattered most was fame and
recognition. The twelfth century saw the start of the Secular Age when the book markets
shifted from the monasteries to the main European cities, such as Paris and London, and to
the university cities such as Bologna, Oxford, and Cambridge. The medieval book market
expanded to comprise the following actors:

• Stationers: Stationers and the booksellers established themselves as the primary

publishers and intermediaries between the author/scribe and the consumer. These
publishers were also responsible for other services including the coordination of the
manuscript production which included the illuminators, bookbinders and paper/vellum
suppliers, book lending, and sale of paper/vellum, and other bookmaking accessories.
• Scholars: Intellectual life outside the monasteries centered around the universities,
scholars, and students, leading to the further fueling of the book market. Specifically,
universities led to the increased dissemination of knowledge, and a growing demand by
a new reading public—the university scholars and teachers.
• New markets: The entry of all these market players created two types of sub-markets.
The first one was the mass-produced book market which made cheap and fast books due
to the division of labor between the scribes and illuminators. The second market catered
for those with luxurious tastes and produced books which were not so much literature as
works of art in terms of illumination and decoration.
• Creators/authors: Once divulged, it was impossible for authors to retain any rights in
the work and thus authors relied on the very Roman system of patronage. Socio-
economic changes in the author’s position meant that if the work became successful
and was in demand, the author could turn publisher by hiring scribes to supply the
market. One historian of medieval manuscripts notes this: From the economic view-
point, the author’s rights may be considered to be vested in that first edition, even if it
only consisted of a single copy, since thereafter he had no rights in his work. Hence to
some extent the patronage system allowed literary men to live by the pen; the price paid
by the author was his obligation not to say anything displeasing to his patron, while at
the same time trying to write to please a growing public.
9 Copyright 153

It was now well accepted that authors deserve protection against all forms of misappro-
priation of their works. This belief became widespread in the nineteenth century, a century
which saw a publishing boom, and perhaps not uncoincidentally, the genesis of interna-
tional copyright law. The nineteenth century produced not only novels, but also large
numbers of histories, geographies, biographies, religious works and political treatises.
Between 1837 and 1901, approximately 50,000 novels were published in Britain alone.
Sound recording companies began demanding rights in the early twentieth century,
especially with the advent of public radio broadcasting which broadcast both live music
and recorded music. It was impossible to accommodate them within the Berne Convention
(still the only copyright convention) as mechanical recordings just could not be considered
to be “authorial” works. The Austrian 1936 law solved the legal dilemma by splitting the
copyright regime into “author’s rights” (Urhe- berrecht) and “related rights” (Verwandte
Schutzrechte), with the latter covering rights of sound recording producers and
broadcasters. The primary cry of the late twentieth century has been for a broader copyright
regime due to the challenges posed by even newer technologies such as the reprographic,
digital, and compression technologies. The current problems did not arise from any single
revolutionary invention but rather are due to the convergence of different technological
developments: networked computers, digital file compression, increased computing power,
the semiconductor chip leading to personal computing (not to mention affordable PCs),
increased telephony coverage and, most importantly, higher communication speed.
Stakeholders and policymakers from developed and developing countries face some
fundamental questions about copyright law and policy such as:

• Should copyright really subsist in telephone directories or lists?

• Should copyright law be extended to protect traditional cultural expressions?
• Is life plus 50 (or 70) years too long a term of protection for computer programs among
other kinds of subject matter?
• Why should the rights holder be remunerated when the lawful purchaser of a book or
CD wishes to make a private copy of the work?

Although copyright law is often said to be a product of technology and commerce, it is

decidedly also a product of historical and cultural norms. Different national laws offer
different types of rights in relation to different types of works for different durations and
much of the divergence lies in the disparate historical and philosophical bases of copyright
law. Nevertheless, this has a practical dimension as the world copyright system is roughly
divided into the group of countries that adopt the common law or Anglo-American
copyright system, and the group of countries that adopt the civil law or continental
Europe—a legal tradition. Of course, within these two groups, there are idiosyncrasies
such as Canada, which due to its Anglo-French legal traditions offers a truly third way by
adopting principles from both sides of the divide. The European civil law countries
emphasize that copyright laws emanate from the need to protect the author or creator of
the work. This emphasis is even reflected in the terminology employed by such countries—
154 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

rather than “copyright,” the rights are referred to as author’s right (droit d’auteur– French,
diritto d’autore – Italian, Urheberrecht – German). Furthermore, the author’s rights are
divided into two distinct categories: economic rights and moral rights.
Open access publishing is not a new phenomenon as it has been the traditional basis of
distributing free newspapers, television and radio broadcasts. These products can be
viewed as open access products or services since intellectual property laws are not imposed
on the consumer instead of advertising, government and private financing schemes pay for
the scheme. There are several notions of what constitutes open accesses. One attempt offers
this conciliatory definition:

There is disagreement as to what constitutes an ‘open access’ journal . . . Regardless of

definition, it is clear that open access publishing is in stark contrast to the traditional publishing
model in two possible ways. 1) Access to articles published within these journals is free of
charge to the public readership. 2) Copyright restrictions on authors may be removed, and
authors retain rights rather than automatically transferring them to publishers

Copyright can be described as a property right, encompassing several distinct exclusive

rights, which arise automatically upon creation of a particular class of works. This property
right authorizes the copyright owner (who may not necessarily be the creator or author) to
do certain acts for a limited period of time. This ambiguous definition indicates the
difficulty in drawing a full technical picture of copyright law from the global perspective.
Pragmatically, and irrespective of jurisdiction, a person concerned with copyright protec-
tion of his work concentrates on five issues:

• Does copyright subsist in the work?

• Who owns the copyright in the work?
• How long does copyright last for?
• Has someone committed any infringing acts in relation to one’s work?
• What defenses are available?

There are three main conditions of protection. Firstly, is the work original? Related to
this condition is the important distinction between ideas and expression. Secondly, does the
work qualify for protection under national law? And finally, some countries provide that
works (or some categories of them) will not be protected unless the work is fixed in some
material form. The notion of originality is fiendishly difficult to define, and yet is the
universally enduring threshold that must be crossed in order for any work to be granted
protection for a term of at least 50 years post mortem actor is (or 70 years pma in increasing
numbers of jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States, and Australia).
Originality in most jurisdictions presumes some level or input of authorial personality, if
only it be shown that the work was not copied, but “originated” from the author. There is,
however, no accepted standard as to what constitutes this authorial personality. Interna-
tional copyright law has seen the gradual but unceasing inflation of an owner’s rights so
9 Copyright 155

that permission is now required for reproducing, adapting, communicating, distributing,

renting and lending a work. The 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties further widened the
communication right to include a making available right, which has been incorporated
into the national copyright laws of many countries including all the European Union
member states, Australia, Singapore, and implausibly, Iraq. Most of these rights are
discussed in respect of digital technology in later chapters. the Berne Convention provides
for two moral rights, that is, the right to claim authorship of the work, and the right to object
to any mutilation or deformation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in
relation to, the work which would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. The
oldest and most important economic rights are those of reproduction and
communication are:

• Right of Reproduction: This right, historically recognized in the first United Kingdom,
Prussian and American copyright laws, is also recognized under the Berne Convention,
the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Treaties. Copying means reproducing the work in
any material form by any means. This vague and broad definition enables the rights
holder, in many countries, to also control the acts of translation, adaptation, and other
types of alterations to the work. The 1996 WIPO Diplomatic Conference adopted an
Agreed Statement which reads as follows:

The reproduction right, as set out in Art.9 of the Berne Convention, and the exceptions
permitted thereunder, fully apply in the digital environment, in particular to the use of
works in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work in digital form in
an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of Art.9 of the Berne
Convention.

• Right of Communication: This right, again recognized early on in French copyright

law, is recognizable, in various guises, within the Berne Convention, the TRIPS
Agreement, and the WIPO Treaties. The WIPO Treaties confirm that the communication
right is available to all authors, performers, and phonogram producers, while
broadcasters are granted a limited right to control the communication to the public of
their television broadcast under the Rome Convention and TRIPS.
• Right to Control Physical Copies/Distribution and Importation: The WIPO Treaties
provide authors, performers, and phonogram producers with the exclusive right to
authorize the making available to the public of originals and copies of works through
sale or other transfer of ownership, that is, an exclusive right of distribution.
• Right to Control Physical Copies/Rental and Droit De Suite: The droit de suite
(or resale royalty right) refers to the author’s right to a share in the proceeds of
subsequent sales of his original work. Original meaning here is the original form
(physical copy) in which the work is embodied. The Berne Convention provides for
this right in relation to original works of art and original manuscripts, but makes it
optional, and applicable only if the legislation in the country to which the author belongs
so permits.
156 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

• Technological Rights: It is a new breed of laws which was introduced under the WIPO
Internet Treaties which give protection to rights holders who use technological measures
to protect their copyright works and who use digital rights management systems
embedded in most digital versions of creative works today which allow owners to
keep track of the distribution and usage of copyright works.

There is little guidance from international conventions in relation to defenses. The Berne
Convention does set out certain limitations, but in a narrow sense, rather than setting out
broad principles. It provides for the possibility of using protected works in particular cases,
without having to obtain the authorization of the owner of the copyright and without having
to pay any remuneration for such use including the following:

• quotations of published works provided that their making is compatible with fair
practice, and the extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose;
• use of literary or artistic works in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings
for teaching purposes, provided the use is compatible with fair practice;
• reproduction by the press, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire
(cabling) of newspaper articles on current, economic, political or religious topics;
• reproduction for the purpose of reporting current events.

In contrast, the United States concept of “fair use” is codified in section 107 of the
United States Copyright Act (USCA), which states that:

. . . the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is
not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include – (1) the purpose and
character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality
of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use
upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is
unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration
of all the above factors.

Patents and Trade Secrets

The modern system of patents for inventions has some fundamental characteristics that
make it different from earlier patent systems. The first step in the modernization of patents
came with the adoption of the notion that patents represent a bargain in which inventors are
granted limited monopoly rights by the government on behalf of society in exchange for the
disclosure of technical information. Over the years, states have granted patents for a variety
9 Patents and Trade Secrets 157

of public policy purposes such as to encourage the immigration of craftsmen, to reward

importers of foreign technologies, to reward inventors, to create incentives for further
inventive activity, to encourage the dissemination of new knowledge and to allow
corporations to recoup their investments in research and development. The way patents
have been justified in different countries has always depended to some extent at least on the
level of industrial development and also to whom one speaks. Nonetheless, as with other
forms of intellectual property (especially copyright), justice-based arguments for stronger
and better enforced rights are also frequently deployed, and such claims can carry strong
moral force. Patents are tools for economic advancement that should contribute to the
enrichment of society through:

• the widest possible availability of new and useful goods, services and technical infor-
mation that derive from inventive activity;
• the highest possible level of economic activity based on the production, circulation, and
further development of such goods, services, and information.

Patents provide inventors with legal rights to prevent others from making, using, selling,
or importing their inventions for a fixed period, nowadays normally 20 years. Applicants
for a patent must satisfy a national or regional patent issuing authority that the invention
described in the application is new, susceptible of industrial application, and that its
creation involved an inventive step or would be unobvious to a typically skilled practi-
tioner. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The patent system
recognizes inventions of various forms. In Europe, Commonwealth and United States the
following are possible:

• new things (products);

• new processes;
• new uses for old things;
• new advantages of old things used in an old way;
• selection patents.

Compulsory licensing and government use measures allow third parties or the govern-
ment to use a patented invention for a royalty or fee, are provided in some countries,
through their patent laws, for such purposes as:

• to deal with a situation in which a patent owner is unwilling to work his invention;
• to satisfy an unmet demand from the public for a patented product;
• to introduce price-reducing competition for important but expensive products, for
example, some drugs;
158 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

• to deal with a situation in which refusal to license a patent, or the imposition of

unreasonable terms, is preventing the exploitation of another invention which is of
technical or economic importance;
• to prevent abuses of patent rights including by breaking up competition inhibiting
monopolies and cartels;
• to prevent the creation of potential competition-inhibiting monopolies and cartels.

Trademarks

We can find very early evidence of the usage of marks and devices to distinguish goods of
one trader from another worldwide. Branding has been in use to mark slaves, animals, and
goods since the early Minoan, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Etruscan, and Chinese
civilizations. From medieval times, marks were used by various guilds to police the quality
of the goods produced by guild members, and to protect members from competitors. After
the demise of guilds, marks were still used by traders and manufacturers, especially with
the growing numbers of shop-merchants and specialized goods shops which sprang up in
the Industrial Revolution. A man is not to sell his goods under the pretense that they are the
goods of another man. He cannot be permitted to practice such a deception, nor to use the
means which contribute to that end. He cannot therefore be allowed to use names, marks,
letters or other indicia, by which he may induce purchasers to believe that the goods which
he is selling are the manufacture of another person.
Trademarks serve not only to identify and differentiate products in the marketplace, but
also to differentiate their purchasers or wearers. Trademarks have become fashion
statements. One of the basic functions of a trademark is to act as a sign, a conveyor of
information. Trademarks can convey a variety of messages and information to the con-
sumer, and to the public. Fashion trade-marks do much more than simply indicate the
origin or quality of manufactured products. They enable consumers to buy goods which
speak to the world and declare “this is the sort of person I am.” Modern business itself has
cynically utilized this ability of a trademark to be a conveyor and purveyor of lifestyle
messages, and have transformed them into sales rhetoric. A primary economic role of the
trademark is to enable competitors to guard against unfair trading or competition.
Consumers rely on trademark law to protect the distinctive power of the mark so that it
can convey information in a more efficient manner. Trademark owners rely on trademark
law to prevent other competitors misappropriating or tarnishing their business goodwill,
which may lead to the dilution of the mark. As per United States Products Services:

Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one
undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark.
Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative
elements, and combinations of colors as well as any combination of such signs, shall be
eligible for registration as trademarks. Where signs are not inherently capable of distinguishing
9 Trademarks 159

the relevant goods or services, Members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness
acquired through use. Members may require, as a condition of registration, that signs be
visually perceptible.

In brief, the absolute legal bars exclude five categories of trademarks, which we will look at
in turn:

• marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;

• marks which are descriptive;
• marks which are generic;
• marks which comprise certain types of shapes;
• marks which are refused on general grounds of morality and public policy.

European Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR), a sign will not be registered as
a trademark if it consists exclusively of:

• the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves;
• the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result (for example, the head
of a screwdriver; the shape of a ball; the shape of a wheel; Freewheel and crank, etc.);
• the shape which gives substantial value to the goods.

The registration will also be refused to distinctive trademarks which nevertheless

conflict with earlier trademarks or with any other rights which exist in the sign. Protection
will be refused if the mark for which registration is sought:

• is identical to an earlier registered mark, in relation to identical goods;

• is identical or similar to an earlier registered mark, in relation to identical or similar
goods, and if there is confusion including a likelihood of association;
• is identical or similar to a registered famous mark, in respect of either similar or
dissimilar goods, and if unfair advantage is taken of or is detrimental to the distinctive
character or repute of the famous mark (anti-dilution).

The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third
parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar
signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the
trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of
the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be
presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall
they affect the possibility of members making rights available on the basis of use. A
Community trademark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using in
the course of trade:
160 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

• his own name or address;

• indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical
origin, the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other
characteristics of the goods or service;
• the trademark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or
service, in particular as accessories or spare parts, provided he uses them in accordance
with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

International Human Rights and Intellectual Property

According to human rights commission of India’s definition, human rights are “a set of
claims and entitlements to human dignity, which the existing international regime assumes
will be provided (or threatened) by the state.” The relationship between intellectual
property and human rights is an intriguing one, raising many interesting questions for
policymakers. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) offers a broader
notion based around an ethical rights-based society which focuses on the just distribution of
material and non-material advantages. There are people within the ranks of both supporters
and critics of intellectual property who would like to see the future debate on intellectual
property rights reframed as a human rights issue. International laws recognize that there is a
relevant nexus between international human rights instruments and intellectual property
policies and laws. Human rights are not merely concerned with fighting for liberation from
unjust regimes; rather they concern also the myriad everyday struggles to maintain a
balance between the material and moral well-being of different individuals and groups
within a society. A more recent authority who supports the notion that good government
and successful societies are based on freedom and respect for human rights is Nobel
laureate economist Amartya Sen:

. . . we also have to understand the remarkable empirical connection that links freedoms of
different kinds with one another. Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections)
help to promote economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health
facilities) facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities
for participation in trade and production) can help generate personal abundance as well as
public resources for social facilities. Freedoms of different kinds can strengthen one another.

The more holistic approach which is further reflected in the two legally binding 1966
covenants, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), can be employed to
support the following typology of human rights falling within three generations:

• Classical (individual) civil and political rights (traditional bastion of rights which
guarantees the rights of the private individual such as the right to life, liberty, and human
9 International Human Rights and Intellectual Property 161

dignity. Sometimes also included are rights of political participation and democratic
governance).
• Newer (individual) social, economic, and cultural human rights (obliges public
authorities to take active measures to provide for the community by granting individual
rights to property, food, health care, labor, and education and reflects the current
discourse as to how intellectual property rights can affect access to knowledge and
essential medicines).
• Third generation (collective) human rights (secures collective rights, which include
rights to membership in a cultural or indigenous community, access to a healthy
environment, and rights to development or self-determination).

There are nine core international human rights instruments, but the three most important
intellectual property-related documents are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948, the ICESCR 1966, and the ICCPR 1966, which together form part of the Interna-
tional Bill of Human Rights, and can be viewed as the constitutional-like basis of human
rights norms.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted and proclaimed by
the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. Although not intended to be a legally
binding document, it is nevertheless an astounding document as it offers a universal moral
code to every individual and every organ of society and was born due to the disregard and
contempt for human rights which had resulted in the Second World War. The primary
intellectual property provision is Article 27, UDHR. This provision prescribes rights for
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production. The
ICESCR recognizes at a general level that a nation’s social and economic development is
realized by improving methods of production, conservation and distribution of resources
through technical and scientific knowledge and by developing efficient systems so as to
achieve efficient development and utilization of resources. Article 15, ICESCR, reads as
follows:

• The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
– To take part in cultural life;
– To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
– To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
• The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full
realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the develop-
ment, and the diffusion of science and culture.
• The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispens-
able for scientific research and creative activity.
• The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the
encouragement and development of international contacts and cooperation in the scien-
tific and cultural fields (emphasis added).
162 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

Whereas the human right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from one’s scientific, literary, and artistic productions safeguards the
personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities, or
other groups and their collective cultural heritage, as well as their basic material interests
which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual
property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments.
Copyright is a human right lies in the Solemn Declaration adopted in the 1986 Centenary
Assembly of the Berne Union, where member states declared, inter alia, the following:

. . . that copyright is based on human rights and justice and that authors, as creators of beauty,
entertainment and learning, deserve that their rights in their creation be recognized and
effectively protected both in their own country and in all other countries of their world.

There is, undoubtedly, a major flaw in intellectual property law in that existing exceptions
and limitations are not governed by coherent international rules but are ad hoc home-grown
provisions which tend to assume that intellectual property laws are compatible with
international human rights norms. A second difficulty is that national courts tend to treat
a defendant’s claims based on human rights as an attempt by the defendant to invoke a
defense to an infringement of an intellectual property right. This is a wrong approach as any
counter-argument based on human rights calls for a balancing exercise between two
competing and equal sets of positive rights.

Information Technologies and the Internet

There is a nexus between technology, especially digital technology, and intellectual

property policy from a contemporary historical perspective. New technologies for society
and business, can upset the established patterns of production, distribution, and consump-
tion of goods. We need technology-friendly intellectual property policies. But designing
such policies is far from easy. New technologies are helping the commercial, creative, and
cultural industries by opening up new streams of revenue from licensing and exploitation.
E-commerce has made brand managers realize that trademarks, which were hitherto
geographically limited to national markets, could now become global marks. This is all
good for business, but the public can undoubtedly gain a great deal too. The twin
phenomena of digitization and the internet present several formidable challenges and
opportunities to both creators and users of intellectual property. Copyright was
technology’s child from the start. There was no need for copyright before the printing
press. But as movable type brought literature within the reach of everyone, and as the
preferences of a few royal, aristocratic or simply wealthy patrons were supplanted by the
accumulated demands of mass consumers, a legal mechanism was needed to connect
consumers to authors and publishers commercially. Copyright is the only solution and
answer for this problem. Here is a summary of the balance sheet as it stands:
9 Information Technologies and the Internet 163

• Risks for Owners:

– Perfect copies (all protected content in the networked environment is in a digital
form, and each new generation of software and hardware technology makes it easier
to make perfect mass copies of such works).
– Distribution (the distribution of digital works undermines the ability of creators and
rights owners to derive profits from their works, which may in some circumstances
lead to the stifling of creativity as the rewards and incentives for producing works
disappear).
• Opportunities for Intellectual Property Owner:
– Price diminution (technology has led to the reduction of costs of printing and
distributing books to consumers, which in turn has led to lower book prices, surely
quelled the average consumer’s enthusiasm in developed countries for photocopying
whole books as opposed to purchasing them lawfully).
– New income sources (the introduction of works, especially music and films, in
improved digital formats raises a new source of income as the average consumer
replaces his existing collection of works with these digital versions).
• Consumer Demands:
– Lower costs of products (books and music can be distributed in an electronic format
directly from the creator/producer to the consumer, and several well-known authors
are toying with this phenomenon. Middlemen or retailers could be eliminated).
– Cheaper and wider distribution (the current formulae for the sale of consumer
products is dictated by the retailer or the producer. For example, students must
purchase an entire book rather than just the chapters or pages that they wish to
study though as discussed below, Google print may change this model).
– Knowledge accessibility (moreover, with the advent of digital libraries, difficult to
obtain works and information could be readily accessed at a fraction of the
current cost).
– Cultural diversity and preservation (global music and film production and distri-
bution are controlled by a small group of producers/distributors who dictate the tastes
of many consumers according to market demands).

Increased availability of electronic resources, particularly at locations remote to the

library buildings, is thought to have contributed to a 60% fall in the number of visits to
library premises over the last 5 years. Digital libraries, thus, challenge the old order of
copyright which operates neatly in a bifurcated world of scholarly libraries and commercial
publishing. If the photocopier created new competing markets domestically, digitization
and the internet created new competing markets on a global scale. The ability to scan works
onto computers and networks changes the way in which knowledge resources are managed
and accessed. This is a perennial problem in relation to intellectual property goods: public
interest merely dictates access to essential intellectual property goods, but does not
necessarily provide the funds to give such access a practical effect. Consequently, we
often find ourselves having to share the exploitation of our common heritage with those
164 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

best able to do so, often corporations having particular interests that are not always in
complete alignment with those of the general public. Legal difficulties might be faced by
authors, publishing houses, and corporations like Google and Microsoft who wish to create
digital libraries. On the other hand, these difficulties appear pretty insignificant and
bureaucratic if one believes that the future of electronic libraries is to become “a universal
archive that will contain not only all books and articles but all documents anywhere—the
basis for a total history of the human race.” The relevant Wikipedia entry sets out the
advantages of digital libraries, which include:

• easy access to books, archives, and images;

• low cost as no payment for staff, book maintenance, rent, and additional books though
digital libraries incur costs in relation to software development and technical staff;
• no physical boundary, and multiple accesses allowing same resources to be used at the
same time by a number of users all over the globe;
• information retrieval system which enables one to search the entire collection with any
search term;
• preservation and conservation as an exact copy of the original can be made any number
of times without any degradation in quality;
• space as traditional libraries are limited by storage space;
• networking as digital libraries can provide a seamlessly integrated and shared resource.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) systems usually lack dedicated, centralized infrastructures. Instead,

they depend on the voluntary participation of peers to contribute resources out of which the
infrastructure is constructed. In a P2P distribution network, the information available for
access does not reside on a central server or one computer; rather, each computer makes
information available to every other computer in the network. The new provisions on
Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) allow copyright owners to limit reproduction
or communication of a locked copyright work, sometimes even to the extent of stopping
third parties accessing works which have been digitally locked up (either by encoding,
scrambling, encryption, or other tools). The TPMs provisions implemented in some
countries to expose a lawful purchaser of a digital product to both civil and criminal
sanctions if such a lawful purchaser circumvents a technological lock to access forbidden
material on the digital product. This is so even when the product comprises the following
types of material or data:

• pure data or ideas, either wholly or substantially;

• those materials or data which are not subject to copyright protection under certain
jurisdictions. These may include laws, government reports, and court judgments (spe-
cific exceptions which are allowed under the Berne Convention and the TRIPS
Agreement);
9 Intellectual Property and Development 165

• materials which have fallen out of copyright protection;

• educational or historical documents which may be used in normal circumstances under a
fair use or fair dealing or educational or a public interest defense.

Computer programs are primarily protected under copyright law. They have been
accepted as “literary works,” both in the international and European legal arena. There is
no definition of computer programs under EC law, though the term includes preparatory
design material leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature
of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage.
Under EU law, protection will be granted to a computer program which is original in the
sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation—no further criteria as to the qualita-
tive or aesthetic merit of the program will be applied. In a British court decision, the court
issued the following guidelines as to how the question of substantial copying should be
dealt with:

• First, a literal comparison between programs is difficult as programs can be written in

different computer languages which bear no literal similarity. Thus, non-literal elements
such as structure, arrangement, menus, formats, etc. should be considered.
• Secondly, one should compare the protected program with the offending program to see
whether there are any similarities between the two works. If so, were such similarities
due to copying?
• Finally, if some elements have been copied, are such elements a substantial part of the
protected program or an insubstantial part of the protected program.

Intellectual Property and Development

Development is a term whose meaning is contested by social scientists and international

development experts and organizations. Nowadays, it is common to speak of economic
development, which focuses on a country’s measurable economic performance relative to
that of other countries of human development, which supplements economic development
by incorporating social welfare considerations; and of sustainable development, which
takes into account the environment as well. In 2000, the United Nations Millennium
Summit was held at which UN member states agreed on a set of goals and targets for
achieving development. The eight goals are now known as the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), and are as follows:

• Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

• Achieve universal primary education;
• Promote gender equality and empower women;
• Reduce child mortality;
• Improve maternal health;
166 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

• Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;

• Ensure environmental sustainability;
• Develop a global partnership for development.

The first official attempt to challenge the international intellectual property regime for
failing to meet the development needs of poor countries was made in 1961, when the
government of Brazil submitted a draft resolution co-sponsored by Bolivia to a committee
of the United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Secretary-General prepared a
report containing:

• a survey of patent legislation in selected developed and underdeveloped countries, with

primary emphasis on the treatment given to foreign patents;
• a study of the effects of royalties paid for the use of patents in the balance of payments of
underdeveloped countries;
• a preliminary analysis of the characteristics of the domestic legislation of underdevel-
oped countries in the light of economic development objectives;
• an indication of the possibility of revising legislation in accordance with the principles
of international law, with a view to permitting the rapid absorption of new products and
techniques to accelerate the rate of economic development;
• a recommendation on the advisability of holding an international conference with the
aim of adjusting the existing patent conventions to the needs of developing countries.

As to pro-development intellectual property norm-setting, the document offered some

principles and guidelines to make negotiations more inclusive and pro-development. These
include:

• undertaking independent, evidence-based “Development Impact Assessment” (DIA) to

consider the possible implications of each norm-setting initiative for core sustainable
development indicators;
• incorporating provisions recognizing the difference between developed and developing
WIPO member states in all norm-setting initiatives;
• holding public hearings prior to the initiation of any discussion toward norm-setting in
WIPO, with the broad participation of different stakeholders, including other intergov-
ernmental organizations, academia, consumer groups, and other civil society
organizations.

Education, Culture, and Knowledge

The advent of the internet coupled with the increasing availability of individual computing
power has expanded access to and usage of informational products, especially cultural,
scientific, and academic works. However, the downside has been that far-reaching
9 Education, Culture, and Knowledge 167

provisions have been introduced into international and national intellectual property laws
especially copyright law which curtail access to such products, and may even have tipped
the balance toward the intellectual property owners and away from the general public.
There is a growing realization of the potential impact of current intellectual property laws
on cultural and educational policies. The increased availability and attraction of digital
works, as well as public domain and public commons projects and organizations such as
Open Source, IP Justice, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Global Internet Liberation
Campaign, the Digital Divide Network, the Digital Libraries project by Google and
Microsoft, the Adelphi Charter, the BBC Creative Archive, and the Creative Commons
license project, have merely highlighted the growing public interest need for a review of the
balance which copyright law has hitherto attempted to achieve vis-à-vis access and
learning. The human right to education implicitly carries much larger public welfare and
communitarian elements than compulsory elementary education alone. The gist of the
education components as found in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) and Articles 13–14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is as follows:

• education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the
sense of its dignity;
• to secure compulsory, free primary education;
• to ensure secondary education is made generally available and accessible to all, espe-
cially by the progressive introduction of free education;
• to ensure higher education is made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, in
particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
• fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified.

The 1999 General Comment No. 13 on the right to education 11 states that part of the
aim of the provision is to make states set up an adequate infrastructure to facilitate the
proper functioning of educational institutions. Accordingly, factors to be taken into account
include teaching materials, library facilities, computer facilities, and information technol-
ogy. The national government in India, for instance, took the position that:

the high production costs of scientific and technical books standing in the way of their
dissemination in developing countries could be substantially reduced if the advanced
countries would freely allow their books to be reprinted and translated by underdeveloped
countries

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions 2005 (Cultural Diversity Convention) entered into force on 18 March 2007
and adopts the approach that intellectual property rights should be subservient to demands
concerning culture and development. Although not an international human rights instru-
ment in the strict, technical sense, the Cultural Diversity Convention has eight guiding
168 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

principles which do explicitly espouse several human rights principles. The pertinent
sections within the Convention are:

• . . . importance of traditional knowledge as a source of intangible and material wealth,

and in particular the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples (Preamble);
• . . . freedom to create, disseminate and distribute their traditional cultural expressions
and to have access thereto, so as to benefit them for their own development (Preamble);
• Recognizing the importance of intellectual property rights in sustaining those involved
in cultural creativity (Preamble);
• . . . cultural activities, goods and services have both an economic and a cultural nature . . .
must therefore not be treated as solely having commercial value’(Preamble);
• Cultural diversity can be protected and promoted only if human rights and fundamental
freedoms, such as freedom of expression, information and communication . . . (Article
2.1);
• Equitable access to . . . cultural expressions . . . and access of cultures to the means of
expressions and dissemination (Article 2.7);
• Cultural expressions are those expressions that result from the creativity of individuals,
groups and societies, and that have cultural content (Article 4.3);
• . . . cultural policies and measures . . . may include . . . measures aimed at nurturing and
supporting artists and others involved in the creation of cultural expressions (Articles
6.1 and 6.2(g), emphasis added);
• . . . protection, promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity are an essential
requirement for sustainable development for the benefit of present and future
generations (Article 2.6);
• . . . encourages individuals and social groups . . . to create, produce, disseminate,
distribute and have access to their own cultural expressions . . . including indigenous
peoples (Article 7).

A recent report by the British Academy argues that copyright is impeding scholarship in
social sciences and the humanities and that the existing copyright exceptions are not clear
enough. Suggested strategies by the Academy report are the same as one read in almost
every other report on intellectual property rights and knowledge and education:

• educating authors about their interests;

• clarifying copyright law to make clear that the use of copyright material in the normal
course of scholarly research in universities and other public research institutions is
covered by the exemptions;
• preventing from using legal or technological measures to circumvent copyright
exemptions;
• monitoring digital databases to ensure access for the purposes of scholarship.
Further Reading 169

Review Questions

1. What is intellectual property? Define intellectual property law.

2. What is the function of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)?
3. What do you know about TRIPS? Explain its functions briefly.
4. Explain the rights of reproduction and communication of Intellectual property.
5. Which are legal, philosophical, and economic arguments for protecting the creations,
investments, and business assets of authors, inventors, producers, and traders?
6. How patents are tools for economic advancement?
7. How printing technology revolutionized the social and legal infrastructure of the book
market?
8. Explain fundamental characteristics of patent systems.
9. Why trademarks serve to identify and differentiate products in the marketplace?
10. Write Short Notes on the Following:
(a) Intellectual Property Spectrum
(b) The International Law and Political Economy of Intellectual Property
(c) Legal, Philosophical and Economic Justifications
(d) Economic Rights of Reproduction and Communication
(e) United States Products Services
(f) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(g) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Further Reading

Bently L, Sherman B (2004) Intellectual property law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dutfield G (2003) Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: a twentieth century
history. Ashgate, Aldershot
Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Massachusetts
Gowers A (2006) Review of intellectual property: a call for evidence. HM Treasury, London
Kaufer E (1980) The economics of the patent system. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur
Koskinen-Olsson T, Gervais D (1999) Electronic commerce and copyright: a key role for WIPO. In:
WIPO Advisory Committee on management of copyright and related rights in global information
networks. WIPO, Geneva. Document ACMC/2/1
Ladas S (1975) Patents, trademarks, and related rights: national and international protection. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rose M (1993) Authors and owners: the invention of copyright. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Spence M (2007) Intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford
170 9 Global Intellectual Property Law

Sterling JAL (2003) World Copyright Law, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Stewart SM (1989) International Copyright and neighbouring rights, 2nd edn. Butterworths Law,
London
Twining W (2000) Globalisation and legal theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UNDP (1999) Human development report. UNDP and Oxford University Press, New York
WIPO (2007) Report of the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development
Agenda [WIPO Document A/43/13 Rev]
Open Access Publishing
10

Overview

Open access is the concept of making publicly funded research freely available to all at the
point of use. This is a change from traditional academic publishing where there is a
subscription charge before the item, usually a journal article in this context, is available.
There are two models for achieving this aim, both of which rely on having publicly
accessible repositories available in which authors can deposit their work; these can be
subject or institutionally based. There have been three influential meetings which have
progressed this concept of open access. The first was in Budapest, Hungary in December
2001, the second in Bethesda, USA in April 2003, and the third was in Berlin, Germany in
October 2003. These are each examined in turn below:

• The Budapest Open Access Initiative: This meeting brought together a small set of
interested parties to discuss how literature which is provided freely by authors can be
disseminated freely to end users. The meeting identified two strategies to achieving the
long-term goal:
– Self-Archiving: depositing a copy of the peer-reviewed article in an open repository;
– Open Access Journals: these will be funded by other means rather than subscription
and will encompass both new and existing journals making the articles freely
available to the end user.
• The Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing: This meeting brought together
interested parties in the biomedical subject area to discuss how progress could be made
in achieving the goal of freely available academic literature. These parties included
publishers, librarians, and funding organizations. The resulting statement defined two
criteria for publications to be considered to be open access:

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 171
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_10
172 10 Open Access Publishing

– rights to access and use the material are granted to users in perpetuity by the
copyright holders;
– a complete version of the work is submitted to an appropriate repository which is
committed to long-term archiving.

The meeting had three working groups which also made statements:

1. Institutions and funding agencies encouraged the authors they supported financially to
adopt the principles of open access publishing, acknowledged that there would be
financial implications, reaffirmed that the quality of the work was the most important
factor in publishing, and stated they would consider open access publishing when
looking at appointments or grant applications.
2. Libraries and publishers acknowledged that there would be disruption as the publishing
paradigm altered. The libraries proposed to support the transition publicize the benefits
and to highlight open access journals.
3. Scientists and scientific societies endorsed the principles, highlighted the importance of
the publishing process, and committed to using and educating others about the benefits
of open access and reflecting this in appointments and tenure.

• The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and

Humanities: This meeting set out to suggest measures to promote the internet as an
instrument for providing and maintaining the academic knowledge base within an open
access context. Their definition of an “open access contribution” went further than
papers and included original scientific results and digital representations of pictures,
etc. Two conditions were put forward: first, that there be no restrictive licenses or
copyright assigned, and second, that the content be in at least one publicly accessible
repository.

With the gold route, the paper is published in a journal which is free at the point of use. As
there are costs involved with journal production, the payment has to be transferred to another
point in the cycle. There are two common methods: either the journal is subsidized by
interested parties or the author pays a fee when the paper is submitted for publication. In an
ideal world the institution or project that is supporting the research has a dissemination budget
to ensure that open access titles can be used. There are growing numbers of these and the
Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/) is a good source of information
about them. With the green route, the paper is placed in an openly accessible repository
(subject or institutional) as the primary place of publication but may also be formally
published. Most publishers allow the deposition of an article into a repository, although
there are differences as to whether this version is prepublication or the final published version.
Some publishers also have an embargo period, which means that there is a gap between the
article being published and accessible from a repository. The SHERPA/RoMEO service
(http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php) tracks the different publisher and journal positions on
this and is an invaluable resource.
10 Promoting Open Access 173

Most of the digital systems and services for technology-supported learning/education,

referring to innovative methods, tools/systems/techniques, and technology-supported
services are recognized as the key drivers to transform the way that individuals/groups/
organizations earn and the way to assess learning in the modern era. These transformations
influence objectives moving from acquiring new knowledge to develop certain new and
relevant competences/methods moving from classroom-based teaching to context-aware
personalized learning, and assessment moving from lifelong degrees and certifications to
on-demand and in context accreditation of qualifications. Within this context, promoting
open access to formal and informal learning is currently a key issue in the public discourse
and global dialogue on education/research.

Promoting Open Access

Over the past decade, the term Open Educational Resources (OERs) has emerged, aiming
to promote open access to digital educational resources, in the form of Learning Objects
(LOs) that are openly licensed and available online for everyone to use (Caswell 2008).
UNESCO (2002) has defined OERs as the “technology enabled, open provision of educa-
tional resources for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for
non-commercial purposes.” The expected benefits of OERs for learners and teachers can
be summarized as follows (Geser 2007):

• They are free to use and publicly available;

• They can be used and/or reused in teaching and learning (usually with attribution to the
creator);
• They can be repurposed, i.e., modified/adapted for different educational contexts of use;
• They can improve teaching by building on other people’s work;
• Their development is a global movement and as a result educational community across
borders can be created around them.

Traditionally, in higher education, a course is a teaching unit that lasts one academic
semester, which is led by one or more instructors, and has a fixed roster of students.
Students may receive a grade and credit after completing the course. Generally speaking, a
course should contain elements of instructors, students, content, interaction between the
teacher and students, evaluation, etc. Since 2006, Khan Academy (Salman Khan) became
well known for its micro video lectures on various subjects; a similar and popular video
lectures project, the Open Yale Courses, was offered to share lectures recorded in the Yale
College classroom in video, audio, and text transcript formats since December 2007. Such
video open courses were popular because they met people’s microlearning needs, but the
interaction and evaluation were missing in these video open courses, which meant that the
video open courses were good resources but not high-quality courses. Massive open online
courses (MOOCs) were first applied in 2008 to describe a particular model of open online
174 10 Open Access Publishing

courses developed by Stephen Downes and George Siemens (Boyatt et al. 2014). The
concept of the MOOC has extended to denote almost all courses offered for free, online,
and at scale. As a new and emerging type of course, MOOCs fully utilize technologies to
support interaction between the teachers and learners, and among learners, which enhanced
the learning outcome. However, the balance of scale and personal learning quality is a big
issue for MOOCs.
Inclusive learning has been the focus of numerous efforts worldwide (Florian and
Linklater 2010). Therefore, several frameworks have been developed aiming to support
the provision of flexible or individualized learning experiences that address inclusion such
as differentiated learning (Tomlinson and McTighe 2006) and universal design for learning
(Rose and Meyer 2002). These frameworks recognize the broad diversity of learners with
respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age, and other forms of human difference and
they provide specific learning design principles to ensure accessibility of all learner types to
the learning environment or education delivery. In higher learning up till now, the idea of
individual learners having an overall grasp of their attainment level with reference to a
target did not exist. This was because the teachers providing the curriculum were specialists
in specific domains and did not pay much attention to students’ overall growth and
development. The students for their part studied only the specialized subjects set out for
them and did not appreciate what they learned from the perspective of the global question:
To the formation of which attributes and skills does each subject contribute?
In online, asynchronous courses, whereby the students and instructor do not meet,
obtaining reliable assessment measures becomes more difficult than in a traditional face-
to-face (F2F) class. It is important to collect several pieces of information about the
performance being assessed to increase reliability (Airasian and Russell 2007). Although
it is possible as an instructor to elicit online quizzes, papers, and projects from students,
there is still the dilemma of determining who is (and how many are) involved in the
submission of the common assessment items. There are issues with the Course Manage-
ment System (CMS) interfaces that influence testing processes in a manner that impacts
results. It is possible to look at the process of developing one’s content knowledge as input
and demonstrating what one knows as output. More commonly, this is referred to as
learning and assessment.
In introducing any topic of investigation, it is usually helpful to understand why it is
presented and what its key drivers are; a listener or reader often finds it helpful to
understand the context of an investigation in order to make some initial sense prior to
embarking on giving it further attention. Such a context can also be described in terms of
motivation, purpose, rationale, and/or justification for the work or as advance organizers
(Ausubel 1960). Perspectives that emerge from responding to questions can also help to
establish context to answers:

• Why is this chapter included in this current volume?

• What is the central argument of this chapter?
• How does this chapter connect with the theme of open access?
10 Promoting Open Access 175

Social networks, crowdsourcing, and open access to learning have recently received a
lot of attention in the area of technology-enhanced learning and have moved over into hot
topics of conversation within the wider educational community. These ideas have
introduced new concepts along with ideas of learning as a social activity and communities
of learners (Haythornwaite 2011). Learners who already engage with social networks, such
as Facebook and Twitter, and accept that they live their lives in the social age with the
public or openness that goes with it (Jarvis 2011), expect similar capabilities in their
learning environments, sometimes even expecting the learning processes to be connected
in some way to their social networks. Technology is refining the “natural alliance between
learning as a contextual activity and the new personal, mobile technology, so that it is
becoming feasible to equip learners with powerful tools to support learning anytime,
anywhere.” Mobile and learning are so closely connected that experts have started to
define learning as native in the mobile world:

Learning is going native in the mobile world—ubiquitous, always on, real-time, built into
everyday life. The kinds of learning that have traditionally been the subject of classroom
instruction will soon cease to necessarily be an event-driven static interruption for employees,
students, and customers (Brandon 2013).

The strength of mobile learning lies in taking advantage of the rapidly evolving scope of
mobile technologies. Woodill (2011) acknowledges that there is a shift in the perception of
mobile learning, claiming that “Ten years ago, mobile learning was about displaying
e-learning on a small screen.” He argues that now it allows learners to learn in an
anywhere, anytime manner and to access information when needed. Being able to sense
the context and location of the learner has opened up many possibilities for researchers to
create more engaging, contextualized, and personalized learning activities, thus
maximizing the benefit of the learning experience. Personalization is one of the strengths
of mobile learning. According to Kinshuk (2009), personalization could be acquired either
by adapting to the learner’s characteristics, learning styles, performance, and needs, or by
adapting to the context in which the learning is taking place. The understanding of
“learning to learn together” (L2L2) is inspired by the real working lives of professionals
having to work together with others in teams to solve complex problems and make
decisions. The United States National Research Council (2000; Grandy and Duschl
2007) strengthened its definition of dialogical processes of inquiry beyond conceptual
learning goals and decided to add the following dialogic features to inquiry learning
process:

• Responds to criticisms from others.

• Formulates appropriate criticisms of others.
• Engages in criticism of own explanations.
• Reflects on alternative explanations and not have a unique resolution.
176 10 Open Access Publishing

Game Based Learning (GBL) or learning with Digital Learning Games (DLGs) has been
one of the most discussed and propagated forms of media-based learning in recent years.
Some programmatic authors (Gee and Prensky 2007) are extremely optimistic in regard to
the potential benefits of GBL, and there is a growing corpus of empirical research on
educational uses of DLGs (Shelton and Wiley 2007; Tobias and Fletcher 2011). However,
little effort has been spent until now in systematically analyzing the theoretical
underpinnings of learning with digital games. The main goal of teaching in higher educa-
tion is to foster autonomous knowledge construction and skill development. Considering
the present knowledge society and the demands of the socioeconomic environment, the
learning processes cannot be limited by traditional teaching frameworks. Although teach-
ing in the traditional system, in either a formal or informal way, is necessary and, in some
knowledge areas, irreplaceable, the use of other teaching and learning approaches is
crucial. Digital media and software should be used as a help supporting learning in
combination with traditional materials rather than using the software as an exclusive
means for learning.

Institutional Repositories: Content and Culture

The word repository has a number of meanings subject to different communities while its
formal definition has changed over the last 35 years. The tenth edition of the Oxford
Concise Dictionary (2000) defines repository as a “receptacle; place where things are
stored or may be found, museum, warehouse, store, shop; burial place.” This is a useful
starting point as it captures two of the most important aspects of any repository: a safe place
to put something and the expectation that there will be a method of finding it again. By the
13th (revised) edition in 2012, the definition is “a place where, or receptacle in which,
things are stored; a place where something is found in significant quantities.” Here, the
emphasis on quantity of content is another useful aspect to repositories in general and
institutional repositories in particular, as successful repositories need a critical mass of
content to justify the effort of searching it, in terms of the investment in time and learning
new information location skills. In these general definitions we can see that there is no clear
description of the content of the repository. In a digital context, the term “repository”
implies that, in addition to the objects themselves or the digital representation of objects,
there will be information describing said objects. In this context, such information is
referred to as metadata. There are many types of metadata but the most common is
descriptive metadata, which is the type of information about an object that would go into
a library catalogue record. The Digital Library Federation uses the following working
definition of a digital library:

Digital libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized staff, to
select, structure, offer intellectual access to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and
ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and
economically available for use by a defined community or set of communities.
10 The Changing Information Environment 177

Repositories use technological mechanisms to achieve the same subject-based functional-

ity. A mechanism for achieving cross-searching repositories is the use and availability of
the Open Archives Initiative—Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). A large
amount of the freely available full text at present is held in subject-based repositories
such as arXiv (http://arxiv.org/) for particle physics and PubMed Central (http://www.
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/) and PubMed UK (http://ukpmc.ac.uk/) for the biomedical
sciences. These have been developed by sections of specialist communities for their
research community.

The Changing Information Environment

Computers have revolutionized information storage and retrieval. In the library domain,
information retrieval routes use resources such as card catalogues with present indices.
Printed paper abstracts from third-party aggregators have been swept away by library
management systems with their associated online catalogues and abstract and indexing
databases, where the metadata in bibliographic records can be used to locate the required
information. This has also been further developed with digital library systems to provide
digital access to the object. The same changes have affected publishing, making the
production of the written word easier and opening access to the prepublication stages
more widely than before. To be able to influence the decision makers and the potential
users of the repository, it is first useful to identify them and their particular viewpoints. In
this environment, stakeholders can be grouped into four broad categories:

• Users of Information (End Users): End users are defined as the group of people who
need access to the contents of academic material to support their research, teaching, or
learning. These users are likely to have a strong sense of belonging to a subject-based
community with a set of expectations of the type of material that will satisfy their
requirements. They must be able to identify, locate, and read relevant information. In
this context, end users are a collection of individuals, not corporate entities.
• Information Providers: This group consists of both individuals and corporate entities.
The common theme is the dissemination of information, either by producing it or
providing the mechanisms to provide access to it. This is an area with a lot of symbiosis,
as authors depend on a publishing mechanism as the main dissemination method,
publishers depend on people and organizations buying the material, and organizations,
usually through their library, depend on the material being available and of sufficient
quality to be useful for their user communities. The entire publishing paradigm is based
on having authors. They produce their written output to disseminate the results of their
research or project. Peer reviewers are recognized experts within their domain and
contribute to the dissemination field by peer-reviewing material, typically journal
articles or conference papers. The peer-review process is designed to ensure that the
intellectual content of the material is checked for validity. They provide their services
178 10 Open Access Publishing

free of charge but gain recognition within their domain for their expertise. Publishers are
the organizations that take the written intellectual output from an author and transform it
into an information commodity which is acquired by, or on behalf of, end users. The role
of the library and information service is to select resources at the appropriate level(s) for
their user communities and to use their skills to provide access in the most appropriate
manner within the budget allocated by the organization.
• Information Mediators: These organizations or individuals contribute to the provision
of content by providing alternative location methods. They are not actually responsible
for the creation or distribution of the content. Such organizations overlay specific
publishers to provide information resources at a higher level than aggregation at a
specific subject level, such as provided by journal title. These information resources
are now usually provided in electronic form and give access to information on content
within certain domain or material types. These are following developments such as
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) and changes in the way’s publishers make
their journals available electronically, general purpose search engines, designed to
locate any resource on the internet, are often the starting point for many readers when
trying to locate scholarly work.
• Users of Meta-Information: This group of organizations is more interested in using
information about the content, rather than the content itself, for internal management
processes. These organizations have a great influence as they tend to have sufficient
budget to support research, teaching, and learning. Funders provide financial support to
institutions, projects, and programs to broaden knowledge in particular domains and
there is an expectation that the results will be disseminated through public mechanisms
so that the full benefits of the research reach the community for which it is intended. It
can be difficult for a funder to assess the publishing success of a particular program due
to the inherent problems in collecting this information. The organization’s academic
performance can be measured by levels and quality of research output and the publish-
ing sphere is a strong component of this at present.

The production and distribution of journals have undergone the most change where
advances in technology and the format of the material being provided have given the
greatest opportunities for expanding information provision. One such high impact factor is
the change to an electronic delivery mechanism. For some titles this is achieved by
producing an electronic version of the print original, in other cases the title is only available
electronically. Most journals in the science, technology, and medicine (STM) sector have
electronic services and the number of electronic-only titles is steadily rising. These
electronic journals have many benefits to end user stakeholders as outlined below:

• They are the preferred delivery mechanism for most academic users. The information
required is accessible from their working environment without physically having to go
to the library building.
10 The Changing Information Environment 179

• Electronic versions are able to link to simulations, graphics and even the underlying
data, thus exploiting capabilities that the print medium cannot offer.
• For print titles, issues need to be physically distributed from the printer to the reader; for
titles published overseas this could take weeks and this delay is therefore apparent to the
subscriber. In delivering the article to the desktop, electronic access has accelerated, or
in some cases abolished, the access lead time to publications. This has obvious benefits
to the readers of the material.
• Electronic access extends beyond the period that the technology has been available. The
medium has been so popular that many publishers have invested in digitizing their entire
back catalogues of journal titles to increase access, usage, and leverage value on existing
outputs.
• Electronic access has reduced barriers by allowing for multiple concurrent use of the
same subscription so the journal is always available for the end user regardless of how
many other people are reading it.

The benefits to organizations and the libraries can be summarized as under:

• Multi-site licenses have reduced the need for duplication for libraries with more than one
site. This has widened the potential usage of each subscription.
• Statistics are easy to produce and with the standardization work of Counting Online
Usage of Networked Electronic Resources (COUNTER) it is possible to compare across
journal providers and publishers (http://www.projectcounter.org/).
• Electronic back catalogues have meant that retention schedules can be examined to see
if the print version is still required, thus releasing space in the physical environment.
• The technique of bundling or big deals has widened the number of titles to which
libraries can give access.

The positive changes for libraries may be considered as under:

• The license restrictions mean that there are limitations on who can use the material. This
is a particularly complex area. In the print world, a library could allow anyone who was
entitled to enter the building to use their journal collection. In the electronic world,
especially for libraries using academic licenses, then the status of the person is
important.
• The medium makes it difficult to ensure that the title is accessible and has led to a new
collection of access issues beyond the journal being lost in the post.
• Access to the full subscription period may become unavailable if the title is cancelled by
the publisher. This models the database subscription world where access ceases once it
is not being paid for.
• Bundling may provide access to titles that are less relevant to the collection. Subse-
quently there is a management decision about what to do with these additional titles.
180 10 Open Access Publishing

• As electronic journals have shifted the paradigm from ownership of print to access to
electronic resources typically located on the provider’s equipment, preservation and
perpetual access to the information that has been purchased is outside the remit of the
library with the subscription.
• Persistent identification of electronic articles is addressed by the Digital Object Identifier
(DOI) service provided by CrossRef (http://www.crossref.org/).

Changing Information Seeking Behaviors

The changes in the way information is provided together with other technological and
social changes have led to a revolution in the way that information is located and perceived
by those who need to find and use it. These changes which have been enabled through
technology have led to a learning and research environment where information needs blend
seamlessly with everyday needs. For example, the same information retrieval skills might
be used to locate electronically a telephone number or an academic paper. Those people
whose environment has always included networked computers have a more seamless
attitude to information than those who have lived through these changes in information
provision. Online communities have been built using tools such as mailing list services,
like JISCmail (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk) in the UK, for at least a decade. A well-known
and early example of this shift is Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), which uses wiki
technology to produce an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has brought both strengths and
weaknesses to information content and provision. It builds on shared values and altruism
to aggregate and disseminate information. The next stages in collaborative work, which can
be used in both formal and informal settings, are services such as the webpage
bookmarking site Del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/) and the digital picture sharing site Flickr
(http://www.flickr.com/), which allow the sharing of personal resources with a wider
community which is not formalized in the way that mailing lists are. Another interesting
development is Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/), a virtual world in which users
can interact with each other and the environment through avatars. However, there is an
acknowledgment in the development of tools such as Google Scholar that the concepts of
relevance and quality are important to some topics. Google Scholar limits the harvesting/
indexing domain to sites which are considered to be academic and high quality, thus
building a quality factor into the search engine. The cult of personality in this new wired
world is being mirrored from the external world. It is easy to adopt new identities in chat
rooms or personal e-mail addresses where the names can reflect how one would like to be
seen, rather than the formal identity that work brings.
10 Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Advocacy 181

The Organizational View

Most of the organizations, especially academic ones, need to take a strategic view of the
information landscape, assess the potential changes and the associated impacts in conjunc-
tion with the requirements of their organization. Any organization that funds an academic
library is likely to buy journals. The changes in publishing paradigm and the rise of open
access will, however, affect the service provided and present staffing and budgetary
implications. For these reasons alone it is important for the library to be involved in an
institutional repository project. An institutional repository fulfills two requirements for an
organization in the present information landscape:

• a method of disseminating outputs under the aegis of the organization;

• a central location and focus for the collection of the outputs of the organization.

An institution may have more than one repository for academic information. In an ideal
world, the author would complete a full and accurate metadata record and attach the full
text at the end of the publisher’s embargo period. However, this may not happen in real life.
The trick is to ensure that inputting the details into the institutional repository has payoffs in
other areas. Open access and other information developments mean that once a repository
is developed, then it is likely to be a long-term investment. The espida project (http://www.
gla.ac.uk/espida/), funded by the Joint Information Steering Committee (JISC) has pro-
duced a model and handbook for developing project proposals or business cases which can
be successfully applied to repository proposals.

Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Advocacy

An institutional repository is a long-term commitment and consideration of the technical

infrastructure and financial issues involved in running a high-visibility and possibly high
impact service is essential. Infrastructure is taken to mean the hardware and software
chosen to run the repository together with the associated support functions to enable the
system to run effectively. With a clear understanding of what is required, and hopefully
some sense of any specialist organizational requirements that might not form part of a
standard service, the project team can look at the available systems to decide on what best
meets the needs of the organization. There is also the consideration of the staff expertise
available will they have the skills and the time to be able to install and modify or set up the
chosen system as required? Regardless of the decisions made on the software to be used
and the associated support, there will be both set-up and ongoing costs. Taking the in-house
service provision, the following areas need to be considered:

• Hardware: The purchase cost of the equipment on which the service runs, if it is to be a
dedicated service, in addition to a rolling replacement/upgrade schedule to ensure that
182 10 Open Access Publishing

the hardware remains in a suitable condition for providing the service. Any support costs
in maintaining computer equipment on site should also be identified. These costs should
include any that result from running equipment, such as backups and security patching
the operating system.
• Software: Although there may not be any direct costs for the software, there may be
costs involved in belonging to user groups or other support communities.
• Staffing: There must be some staff costs involved with the technical running of the
service, such as installation of software upgrades and ensuring that the security patches
for the hardware are up to date.

Purchasing decisions are as important as technical considerations regarding the imple-

mentation and maintenance of software. Depending on how the infrastructure is supported,
these issues may be subject to other service’s policies. Current software is under develop-
ment to ensure that it stays in step with changing requirements. This brings a host of
decisions about upgrading the software:

• Who will perform them?

• What external factors may affect the timing of upgrades?
• What position does the project take on when to upgrade?
• Is a test server necessary?
• What acceptance tests will there be and who will perform them?

Intertwined with software upgrades are the decisions made on local customisation of the
software. One of the benefits of open source software is than it is possible to modify the
underlying structure to one’s needs and that such developments can be shared within the
community. The points to be considered here are:

• What is the policy on customizing the software and adding local tweaks?
• Will these customizations need redoing after upgrades or could they be adopted by the
developers to become part of the final version?

Some standards, such as OAI-PMH, are part of the software and are well developed. All
systems are able to provide Dublin Core output, but this is not descriptive enough to be able
to ensure complete interoperability and transfer of data between different systems. Thus,
although much of this area is fixed, there should be policy regarding what metadata
standards have been chosen and complied with. The preservation approach over the long
term will have an effect on the financial sustainability of the service. The issues to
consider are:

• What data migration and preservation strategies will be adopted and does this apply to
the whole collection or specialized subsets?
• At what stage are preservation actions going to take place?
10 Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Advocacy 183

• Is the preservation going to be done in-house?

A system is only as good as the support staff and so their learning and development
needs should be taken into consideration. As such, the mechanisms and costs for ensuring
that staff are up to date with developments is an important area. Once the infrastructure and
policy decisions are in place and documented then there should be structures in place to
ensure the smooth running of the service. An important part of this is a business continuity
plan. If possible, the recovery plan should be tested before any real disaster happens to
ensure that it is accurate. These plans and procedures should be checked every 6–12 months
for accuracy. Examples of areas to consider include:

• Damage to the IT infrastructure providing the service;

• Staffing problems, such as succession planning, skills gaps, etc.;
• Funding;
• Not achieving strategic goals;
• Physical damage to the building.

New pilot projects might be funded through shifting priorities or special projects, once
the institutional repository is embedded into the business process of the organization, more
long-term funding mechanisms should be explored to ensure that the service is on an even
keel. Content is the most important area as an empty repository, even one with very clear
policies, is of no use without any content. There are many decisions to be made about the
content to ensure that it is fit for purpose and satisfies as many stakeholder groups as
possible:

• What material types is it designed to hold?

• Who is entitled to deposit content?
• Who do you expect to be the main content builder?
• Are the authors likely to self-deposit or will they get someone else to do it for them?
• Will professional cataloguers be involved in the process?
• How will the repository be structured?
• Will there be data validation and checking?
• What processes will be put in place to ensure consistency and accuracy of information?
• What is the position on retrospective information?

There are many stakeholders in the institutional repository but the key ones are the
authors who produce the content that should be deposited in the repository. There are two
parts to a successful partnership between depositor and repository: a clear understanding of
the purpose and remit of the repository to ensure that the deposit process is as straightfor-
ward and time-efficient as possible. Interacting with authors is where the culture of the
organization and subject domain comes into play as, on the surface, the authors are those
with the least clear immediate personal benefits in the process. Assuming that the author is
184 10 Open Access Publishing

prepared to self-deposit, they have the added task of making the deposit using the provided
workflow mechanism, but having done so, the benefits are intangible unless the repository
is embedded in organizational processes such as personal reviews. Continuing with the
theme of authors, there are some readily identifiable external influences on the researcher
on their attitude to using an institutional repository:

• Department policy;
• Funder policy;
• Domain attitudes;
• Organization policy.

To be successful with all the users and stakeholders involved in institutional repository
building the advocacy campaign should be planned in an organized fashion. The general
points to start the planning process with might include:

• Which group of stakeholders to start with?

• To understand the discipline differences;
• To identify key organizational committees;
• To identify early adopters of open access principles;
• To identify areas with complicated requirements;
• To be responsive to criticism;
• Publicity;
• Branding.

The key messages define the type of advocacy used to get the message are:

• Information landscape and open access;

• What is an institutional repository and why should anyone have one?
• The local policy on content;
• Local policy on who inputs the content, and any approval/checking mechanisms;
• Removal policy;
• Demonstration of the system.

As part of the advocacy process, there is likely to be some content concerned with
training and documentation. There are three types of repository user who might require
documentation and training: the end users of the information who need to know how to
locate information, the author or author’s intermediary who inputs the metadata and the
associated digital object, and system administrators. The end users represent a wide range
of people within the organization and may include library staff using the repository to
answer enquiries, or authors using the repository at the endpoint of a research project/piece
of work. It may be viewed as an administrative task rather than a dissemination route.
Training might include one or more of the following methods:
10 Conceptual Models of Information 185

• department briefing and/or sessions, where domain specific issues can be addressed;
• formal training events;
• drop-in sessions at set times;
• one-to-one sessions—useful for those people who are likely to input a lot or for
important stakeholders who need to have a positive learning experience.

Useful types of written material might include: quick start; user manuals; help and
on-screen guidance; news articles. Once the organization has decided to implement a
repository, the hardware and software infrastructure needs to be put in place and any
decisions documented. For successful content generation, careful thought must be given to
which community members should be approached first and what aspects of a repository
will motivate them to get involved. Once content has started to be input, there are new
issues around maintaining it, including validation and verification.

Content Decisions and Legal Issues

It is a difficult task, what the content of an institutional repository might be, what the
cultural and legal issues involved are, and touches on the complicated issue of versions and
being able to identify which version has been located. As repositories are designed so that
those once considered end users can input metadata, a straightforward method of ensuring
consistency of data quality within the repository is important. Library catalogues and other
information resources are generally produced by people who are trained to use precise rules
and conventions, who understand the importance of accuracy for retrieval and that the
information in such resources is on public display. End users need enough information
about the content from the resource discovery service to ascertain whether it will be of use
to them. By using metadata standards and protocols, third-party service providers can use
the information within the system for other purposes, widening the dissemination remit.

Conceptual Models of Information

The most important conceptual models in this area have been developed by the Interna-
tional Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) and are called Functional Requirements
for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). This model identifies four entities needed to describe a
bibliographic work together with an entity relating to agents and the actions they perform
on the bibliographic record.

• Work represents a particular conceptual idea. This does not have any physical embodi-
ment on its own this is done by describing expressions of the work.
• Expression is a particular version or representation of the idea with some distinct
intellectual content. If describing an existing item there will always be at least one
186 10 Open Access Publishing

expression. Due to different editions of the same item, or the same concept rendered in
different ways, there may well be more.
• Manifestation is a physical representation of the expression and the first point where
consideration of the actual format is made; there is always at least one. The expression
could be realized, for example, by a print run, a piece of art or a digital object. A digital
object with the same intellectual content but in a different format is a different manifes-
tation of the same expression.
• Item describes a particular representation of the manifestation. There is always one, but
this need not be a single entity as there may be many physical items for some
manifestations.

Metadata Standards

The baseline for interoperability in metadata standards available is Dublin Core. This
standard has its roots in web-based discovery and was developed to describe this type of
material in a uniform manner rather than library-specific material. Dublin Core is
maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (http://dublincore.org/). Dublin Core
is the lingua franca of the web world, it is important to be able to generate this, regardless of
what internal standards are used to describe the objects. The original set is as follows:

• Contributor (an entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the
resource, typically a person or an organization);
• Coverage (extent or scope on the content of the resource);
• Creator (an entity primarily responsible for making the content of a resource, typically
a person or an organization);
• Date (associated with the lifecycle of the resource, typically the creation date);
• Description (an account of the resource);
• Format (the physical or digital manifestation of the resource);
• Identifier (unambiguous reference to the resource in a given context);
• Language (language of the intellectual content of the resource);
• Publisher (entity responsible for making the resource available);
• Relation (a reference to a related resource);
• Rights management (information about rights held in and over the resource);
• Source (reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived);
• Subject (topic of the content of the resource);
• Title (a name given to the resource);
• Type (nature or genre of the content of the resource).

Data exports could include a Dublin Core scholarly works application profile for
services that are able to understand and use this more detailed information as well as
10 Metadata Standards 187

providing straightforward Dublin Core. It breaks the metadata required for a scholarly work
into five sections:

• The scholarly work (title, creator, subject, funding information and abstract);
• An expression of the scholarly work (title, description, status, language, versioning
information, dates, citation, references, and identifier);
• The manifestation (format, publisher, where available);
• The copy (access right, date available, license information);
• The agent (name, workplace homepage, mailbox, and identifier).

Dublin Core standpoint of an entity primarily responsible for making the content of the
resource to be an author of the e-print and the notes specify that the expected input is a
name or a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) link to a person. There is no overall detailed
standard in use for all repositories as there is in library catalogues with Machine-Readable
Cataloguing (MARC). If the MARC style approach and level of detail is important then the
Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), which has been developed by the Library
of Congress and the MARC Standards Office, might be the way to go. With the trend in
information resource description to use XML as the standard for web-based resources,
MARC21 has been adapted to the XML standard as MARCXML. It was acknowledged
that MARCXML and MARC21 may be too rich for some purposes and so MODS was
developed. As part of the development process it supports or extends METS and harvesting
protocols. As it is based on a widely used library standard, the metadata created using
MODS is compatible with existing information resources. The high-level elements are:

• Element (information);
• Title Info (information about the title, including if it has an alternative, etc.);
• Name (name, including type, role, and affiliation);
• Type of Resource (from a set of values describing possible works);
• Genre (type of material);
• Origin Info (place, publisher, date (created, captured, valid, modified, copyright and
other), edition and frequency);
• Language (of the work);
• Physical Description (form, digital origin, and preservation details);
• Abstract;
• Table of Contents;
• Target Audience.
• Note;
• Subject (type of subject term, such as topic, temporal, geographic, etc.);
• Classification (including the scheme used);
• Related Item (type of relation and the link);
• Identifier;
• Location (physical location and/or URL);
188 10 Open Access Publishing

• Access Condition;
• Part (ordering information);
• Extension;
• Record Info (information on record and coding scheme used).

Types of Material and their Differences

A research institution might produce many different types of research output from data
collected from an experiment, through software to written publications and one-off
performances in the arts. In certain disciplines, access to the research record is a straight-
forward and well understood process, in others it is more complicated and related to the
output itself. A more interesting issue is data. Data is not a homogeneous collection always
requiring similar metadata. It is a very complex domain and sometimes even a project
specific area. It underpins the scholarly communication cycle in many disciplines but is not
always formally recognized in the same way as publication has been. As books are
substantial intellectual outputs, it is less likely that they will have been published in an
open access environment and therefore the full text of the work may not be available. This
is a rather different concept to journal issues as each article stands alone and is only related
to the next one through the decision-making process of the editor rather than being part of a
related series of information packages:

• Description (all or part of a formally published item, it will stand in its own right).
• Discipline (all disciplines).
• File formats (text-based).
• Quality standards (the publishers of the work will ensure that it meets their quality
standards before publishing it).
• Alternatives to institutional repository (depending on the discipline there may be
subject-based repositories where the full text can be deposited, and many location tools
such as library catalogues and online bookshops can be used to locate the item and
arrange for a copy to be acquired).

There are many outputs from conferences and these can vary from the presentation aids
used during a talk to a formal refereed paper. The formality of the conference is set by the
discipline and organizers as under:

• Description: One or more of

– speaker’s aids for a presentation;
– poster describing the project;
– a formal written piece of work.
• Discipline: All disciplines, however, it is a more important method of dissemination
than journal articles in certain disciplines, such as computer science.
10 Gray Literature and Journal Article 189

• File formats: Word-processing formats, presentation graphics formats, or even video of

the event.
• Quality standards:
– Most academic conferences review the submissions, and therefore the intellectual
content and the papers which are formally published, although the presentations/
posters are not reviewed;
– For conferences for practitioners, especially those relating to user groups, there is
likely to be less, or even no, review of the content; this is especially true where the
proceedings are not formally published but put on a user group website.
• Alternatives to institutional repository:
– Website for the conference, which may be limited to those who attended or a
particular user group;
– The standard library catalogues for the formal conference proceedings;
– Project or personal websites.

Gray Literature and Journal Article

Gray literature is material that is not formally published but is released informally. It can be
the hardest type of material to locate due to this form. The nomenclatures of gray
literature are:

• Description (material that is not formally published and thus can be very hard to track).
• Discipline (most likely to be in all disciplines).
• File formats (mostly text file formats).
• Quality standards (no external input to the quality, but may be some internal review).
• Alternatives to institutional repository (depending on the context in which the
material is produced, it may be available electronically).

Journal article refers to the finally produced version. The author’s rights to deposit this
version are dependent on the agreement with the publisher. The nomenclatures of journal
articles are:

• Discipline:
– All disciplines.
• File formats:
– Initial stages may have different components in separate packages but the formally
published version is likely to be available as a PDF file.
– Text file formats will include Microsoft Word, Latex, postscript, open source word-
processing formats.
• Quality standards:
190 10 Open Access Publishing

– A peer-review process is undertaken for most journals to ensure the work is of

appropriate quality.
• Alternatives to institutional repository:
– Specialist subject-based repositories such as arXiv for particle physics preprints,
Cogprint for psychology, or PubMed for medical/biological sciences;
– Access to the publisher’s version;
– Access through aggregators and document supply services, for which a fee would be
levied.

Preprint and Other Modes

The term preprint refers to any version(s) of the work before any formal publication. This
may be a loose term and may include alterations following peer-review comments. The
nomenclatures of preprint are:

• Description:
– This is a piece of text, with associated illustrations, intended to disseminate the
results of research; versions before the formally published one may be available,
depending on discipline;
– Illustrations can include photographs, diagrams, graphs, output from scientific
instruments, or output from analytical software packages.
• Discipline:
– All disciplines.
• File formats:
– Initial stages may have the different components in separate packages but the
formally published version is likely to be available as a PDF file.
– Text file formats will include Microsoft Word, Latex, postscript, open source word-
processing formats.
• Quality standards:
– It may be unclear as to whether the preprint has undergone any external review.
• Alternatives to institutional repository:
– Specialist subject-based repositories such as arXiv for particle physics preprints,
Cogprint for psychology, or PubMed for medical/biological sciences.

Technical reports and working papers are text with associated illustrations, intended
to record and disseminate interesting or important technical details which are not
suitable for journal publication. These are usually published by the research institution
or university of the author. They are likely to be part of a formal series, published in all
disciplines, and the unique report number reflects this. Initial stages may have the
different components in separate packages. Text file formats will include Microsoft
10 Open Archival Information System Model 191

Word, Latex, postscript, open source word-processing formats. These will have been put
in place by the institution which published it, usually to ensure that the reputation of the
organization is not harmed and that valuable intellectual property is retained.

Thesis is a piece of text with associated illustrations, submitted by the author to a

university in order to gain a doctorate or master’s degree. Illustrations can include
photographs, diagrams, graphs, output from scientific instruments, or output from analyti-
cal software packages. The thesis is not formally published anywhere but will have
acknowledgment of both the author and the awarding institution. These are published in
all disciplines in text-based formats such as Word and Latex. The awarding institution
decides whether the thesis is of the appropriate quality for the qualification for which it is
being presented.

Open Archival Information System Model

Open Archival Information System Model (OAIS) is a conceptual model to ensure that data
repository archival needs are considered. It has come out of the space data community, but
is now applied in other areas rather than science data repositories and is an ISO standard
(ISO 14721). The basic underlying principle of this model is that representation informa-
tion must be applied for a particular data object to be meaningful and usable in a particular
context. The OAIS model uses a concept of information packages. It defines three types of
package, varying according to their functional use:

• Submission information package (SIP): This is generated as the item is ingested in the
repository. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship with archival information
packages (AIPs). Many SIPs can make up an AIP; however, the packaging information
will always be present.
• Archival information package (AIP): This is the preservation entity and as such
should contain all the information needed to be able to preserve the content for the
long term.
• Dissemination information package (DIP): This is produced by the repository from
one or more AIPs in response to a user request for information.

For every type of information package, there are two types of entity: the content
information and the Preservation Description Information (PDI). The PDI covers the
provenance of the content information, context, reference to unique identifiers of the
content, and finally fixity to provide a mechanism for identifying unauthorized changes.
Associated with the concepts related to the information, there are a series of processes to be
considered and planned:
192 10 Open Access Publishing

• Ingest: This process manages the submission, both physical and at a policy level, of
content and the generation of archival quality information and the AIP. It will perform
the necessary verification and validation checks on the input and record information
within the system.
• Data management: This manages the underlying database which manages the system,
ensuring that the structure (schema) is correct and also runs any queries needed to
retrieve information.
• Archival storage: Provides the ability to store, maintain, and retrieve the AIPs.
• Access: Supporting the consumers of the repository to be able to retrieve the information
and use it, this process generates DIPs.
• Preservation planning: Monitoring the environment and providing recommendations
to ensure that this remains suitable, this includes both technical facets and user
requirements. Migration planning is also part of this role.
• Administration: Manages the policies for ingest by providing reporting tools and
documents processes and systems.

The Research Libraries Group (http://www.rlg.org/) and the American National

Archives and Records Administration (http://www.archives.gov/) are working on the
concept of digital repository certification to be able to build up a network of trusted
repositories. The Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS) model and
associated Data Dictionary are produced by a working group sponsored by OCLC (http://
www.oclc.org/) and the Research Library Group (RLG). The model builds on the OAIS
reference model.

Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS)

Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies is a metadata standard for recording

information required for preservation of digital objects. The PREMIS model has five
entities: intellectual entities, objects, events, agents, and rights. An intellectual entity may
be made up of one or more objects. These objects will have rights associated with them to
be able to control access and permissions and events, which can be preservation actions.
Both rights and events are linked to agents which are people, organizations, or automated
software. The Data Dictionary considers the metadata that will be required. The following
is an overview of the areas suggested:

• Identifiers (It must be possible to uniquely identify the objects).

• Preservation level (If the repository aims to curate items to different precisions, then
this should be recorded).
• Technical information on the item (This describes whether the files are encoded, some
measure of fixity, the size of the file, the version of the format, etc. This can either be
captured within the record or be a pointer to a registry of format types such as the UK
10 Access Tools and Services to Open Access 193

National Archives PRONOM (Public Record Office Nom, Developed by National

Archive of UK) service).
• Information relevant to this particular item (This includes such as properties of the
item that need to be preserved for the action to be meaningful, in addition to any
potential problems).
• Creating application (This includes information about the creating application and the
dates that the files were generated. This is another area where a registry would be
useful).
• Original name and content location within the storage system.
• Environment needed to access the content (Describes what hardware and software
will be required to be able to use the file without any further actions).
• Digital signature (If the repository uses a digital signature for deposit or for the
agreements, then this needs to be recorded together with information on how to check
it).
• Relationship with other content (A particular entity may be related to other content in
the repository: it may be a different version or the same version in a different format.
These links are useful to record. For an intellectual entity rendered in many files, such as
a digitized version of a printed work, it is important to record the order of the files so that
the final work can be rendered in the right order).
• Events (For events/actions on the content of the repository there should be an audit
trail).
• Agents (The repository needs to know who the agents are).
• Rights and permissions (This should record what permissions and rights have been
given to the repository and its agents).

Access Tools and Services to Open Access

Tenopir (2004) states that Open Access:

includes many publication and distribution schemes. E-journals that are published, distributed
electronically, and subsidized by universities, government agencies, and volunteer
organizations are the most common. In addition, collections of separate articles or research
reports could fit the definition, including e-print servers such as arXiv.org, institutional
repositories, and author web pages. (Tenopir 2004)

Framing the Issue, published by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL 2004) outlines
some issues relating to Open Access. Open Access is an ongoing discourse among
scholars, researchers, and libraries. It addresses questions such as:

• Why is access to information important?

• What obstacles limit access?
• What is Open Access?
194 10 Open Access Publishing

Repositories adhere to an internationally agreed set of technical standards that means

that they expose the metadata (the bibliographic details such as author names, institutional
affiliation, and date, titles of the article, abstract, and so forth) of each item in their contents
on the Web in the same basic way. In other words, they are “interoperable.” This common
protocol to which they all adhere is called the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for
Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). According to Giarlo (2005), the OAI-PMH works in
much the same way that Z39.50 does, enabling a common set of functions to be accessed
via a standard protocol. The great benefit of OAI-PMH is the ability to harvest records from
numerous providers (e.g., Open Access journals, institutional repositories, etc.), and
aggregate them under a single search. The contents of all repositories are then indexed
by Web search engines such as Google and Google Scholar, creating online Open Access
databases of freely available global research. As the level of self-archiving (the process by
which authors deposit their work in repositories) grows, the Open Access corpus will
represent an increasingly large proportion of the scholarly literature. To achieve Open
Access to scholarly journal literature, BOAI (2002) recommend two complementary
strategies:

• Self-Archiving (Green OA): At first, the scholars need the tools and assistance to
deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly
called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open
Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as
one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to
find and make use of their contents. When authors make their articles freely available in
digital form on the Internet, they are said to be “self-archiving” them. These articles can
be either “preprints” or “postprints.” Preprints are draft versions of articles that have not
undergone peer review or editorial review and modification. Most preprints are intended
for submission to journals, but some are not. Self-archiving has some well explained
strategies in itself as Bailey (1980) stated that “the most common ways that e-prints are
made available on the Internet are:
– authors’ personal websites;
– disciplinary archives;
– institutional-unit archives;
– institutional repositories.

But authors at times find it difficult to do self-archiving due to some apprehensions

about publisher’s policies. This is why SHERPA/RoMEO is existing to offer list of
publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving.

• Open Access Journals (Gold OA): These are journals that are freely available to
scholars online for downloads and use. According to Suber (2013) as cited in Wikipedia
(2013b), Open Access journals are scholarly journals that are available online to the
reader “without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from
10 Access Tools and Services to Open Access 195

gaining access to the Internet itself.” Some are subsidized, and some require payment on
behalf of the author. Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of
journals committed to Open Access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the
transition to Open Access. Suber characterizes the core concept of Open Access
this way: Open Access removes price barriers (e.g., subscription fees) and permission
barriers (e.g., copyright and licensing restrictions) to royalty-free literature (i.e., schol-
arly works created for free by authors), making them available with minimal use
restrictions (e.g., author attribution). Open Access has the following characteristics:
– It is free availability of scholarly publication.
– It is free of copyright and licensing restrictions.
– Materials are available online or on the Internet.
– Material is full text.
– Material can be accessed by anybody from anywhere without any discrimination.
– Material can be freely used by anyone.
– Open Access contents can be in any format from texts and data to software, audio,
video, and multi-media, scholarly articles and their preprints.

Open Access is beneficial to as many as include:

• teaching staff and students;

• authors;
• readers;
• society;
• journals and publishers;
• funding agencies;
• governments;
• citizens;
• libraries;
• universities and nations;
• accelerates research;
• enriches education;
• shares learning across rich and poor nations.

Open Access is especially important for research and academic libraries since all
academic institutions are research-intensive and a library’s main mandate is to support
the teaching, learning, and research activities of their parent institutions. All three activities
are research-based (Jain 2012).
196 10 Open Access Publishing

Role of Libraries

One of the key goals of the institutional repository, simply stated, is to capture the
intellectual output of an institution and make it available via a single interface, so that
one no longer needs to scour disparate faculty and graduate student websites in order to find
their research. A single point of access, search, and organization of scholarly materials
within the institution would be of value to the communities served by academic libraries,
and there are certainly other values of institutional repositories. One such value is digital
preservation, as “libraries are in a better position than individual academics to guarantee
that the collection is systematically available even after decades.” Librarians all over the
world have become advocates of Open Access. It has been observed that when authors self-
archive their works, it lessens the burden on librarians.
Hence, the need to educate researchers in universities on Open Access and its place in
research how authors can put up their works not only for the world to see, but to boost their
careers as this will encourage scholarly communication. When another author cites an
author’s work, it goes a long way in career promotion. Open Access also requires policy
and procedure changes, in order to accommodate the additional collections of institutional
repositories and Open Access journals. Subject specialists, bibliographers, and cataloging
librarians need to establish guidelines to perform quality control and regular catalogue
maintenance on these titles. Ideally, a repository is a place or container where anything
could be kept for safekeeping. But whenever “repository” is mentioned, “books” come to
mind, especially where librarians are concerned. A library could be likened to a repository
where books are stored for safekeeping and easy reference. More recently, a repository is
usually associated with digital contents due to the advent of the Internet. Ideally, a
repository ought to be a storehouse of archival contents whereas a digital repository is
where digital content and assets are stored and can be searched and retrieved for later use.
With the advent of the Open Access Initiative (OAI), the advocates never really
differentiated between these two terms; rather, it is assumed that repositories are digital
in nature. So, when a repository is mentioned, “digital repository” comes to mind.
Access tools are pointers to information obtained in databases and repositories. “Lib
111 Glossary on Information Technology, Internet and Library Terms” defines access tools
as bibliography, catalog, database, or other information source, which leads us to informa-
tion on our topic. An access tool helps a researcher, student, or librarian gain access to
relevant documents located on the web. Some of the Open Access tools as discussed in this
paper are: DOAJ, DOAR, ROAR, SHERPA/RoMEO, and SPARC.

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

The Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/) is a website that lists Open
Access journals and is maintained by Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA).
Until January 2013, the DOAJ was maintained by Lund University. The aim of the DOAJ
10 The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) 197

is to increase the visibility and ease of use of Open Access scientific and scholarly journals,
thereby promoting their increased usage and impact. The DOAJ aims to be comprehensive
and cover all Open Access scientific and scholarly journals that use a quality control system
to guarantee the content. In short, the DOAJ aims to be the one stop shop for users of Open
Access journals. The project defines Open Access journals as scientific and scholarly
journals that meet high-quality standards by exercising peer review or editorial quality
control and “use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for
access.” The Budapest Open Access Initiative’s definition of Open Access is used to define
required rights given to users, for the journal to be included in the DOAJ, as the rights to
read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles.
Open Access journals are defined by DOAJ as “journals that use a funding model that does
not charge readers or their institutions for access.” DOAJ is the most recognized and most
authoritative list of scholarly, peer-reviewed, fully Open Access journals. More than 10%
of the world’s peer-reviewed journals are now included in DOAJ, making DOAJ among
the world’s largest collections of peer-reviewed scholarly journals, period. There are more
peer-reviewed journals in DOAJ than Science Direct; more non-embargoed, peer-reviewed
journals in DOAJ than in EBSCO’s Academic Search Premiere or Gale’s OneFile.

The DOAJ vetting process involves querying journal editors to ensure that peer-review or
equivalent quality controls are in place and that journals meet the criterion of true Open
Access as per the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition. To be included in DOAJ, a
journal must have an ISSN. Journals included in DOAJ go through a periodic review process
to ensure that the journal continues to meet the criteria for inclusion (Morrison 2007).

DOAJ has the following Coverage:

• Subject (All scientific and scholarly subjects are covered);

• Types of resource (Scientific and scholarly periodicals that publish research or review
papers in full text);
• Acceptable sources (Academic, government, commercial, nonprofit private sources are
all acceptable);
• Level (The target group for included journals should primarily be researchers);
• Content (A substantive part of the journal should consist of research papers. All content
should be available in full text);
• All languages

DOAJ has access as:

• All content freely available.

• Registration: Free user registration online is acceptable.
• Open Access without delay (e.g., no embargo period).
198 10 Open Access Publishing

DOAJ offers the Search and Browse interfaces, to offer users opportunity to gain access
to all the journals available in the directory. Search interface is a service that enables
researchers search the directory by journals or articles by typing a desired title or subject.
This is similar to a library user who visits the library for research, needing a material
without knowing the author or name of the book or journal he/she is looking for. There is
also the advanced search option whereby journals can be searched for using either the title,
ISSN, author, keyword, abstract, publisher.

The Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR)

OpenDOAR is an authoritative directory of academic Open Access repositories. As well as

providing a simple repository list, OpenDOAR lets you search for repositories or search
repository contents. OpenDOAR is one of the SHERPA Services including RoMEO and
JULIET, run by the Centre for Research Communications (CRC). OpenDOAR has also
been identified as a key resource for the Open Access community and identified as the
leader in repository directories in a study by Johns Hopkins University. OpenDOAR was
one of the services, which contributed to SHERPA being awarded the 2007 SPARC
Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications. Oliver and
Swain (2006) conducted a research on “Directories of Institutional Repositories: Research
Results & Recommendations” and came to a finding that “the University of Nottingham’s
OpenDOAR stands out as the leader among the directories identified, particularly for the
purposes envisioned at the Section’s 2005 business meeting. It is international in scope.
Subject coverage is noted and it is possible to browse and retrieve repositories with health
and bioscience content.” A directory such as OpenDOAR makes it easier to identify and
mine the individual repositories. The website of DOAR is: www.opendoar.org and therein
are listed as a submenu, the services offered by the directory such as: Search for
repositories, Search repository contents, List of repositories, Repository Statistics.
DOAR’s Strengths are:

• It is user-friendly;
• It offers Open Access to over 2200 listings;
• It gives a quality-controlled list of repositories.

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)

SPARC(r), the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (URL: http://
www.sparc.arl.org) is an international alliance of academic and research libraries working
to create a more open system of scholarly communication. SPARC was developed by the
Association of Research Libraries in 1998 and believes that faster and wider sharing of the
outputs of the scholarly research process increases the impact of research, fuels the
10 Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) 199

advancement of knowledge, and increases the return on research investments. SPARC

focuses on taking action in collaboration with stakeholders including authors, publishers,
and libraries to build on the unprecedented opportunities created by the networked digital
environment to advance the conduct of scholarship. SPARC Europe was established with
LIBER in 2001.
SPARC’s primary focus is on journal literature, but their evolving strategy reflects an
increasing focus on Open Access to research outputs of all kinds—including digital data
and open educational resources (OER). SPARC supports the immediate, barrier-free online
availability of scholarly and scientific research articles, coupled with the rights to reuse
these articles fully in the digital environment, and supports practices and policies that
enable this. SPARC recognizes that the conduct of scientific and scholarly research is
increasingly digital, and that its advancement is predicated on being able to access,
comment on, build upon and reuse data. SPARC supports practices and policies that
promote broad, Open Accessibility and utility of scholarly and scientific research data.
SPARC believes that Open Education makes the link between teaching, learning and the
collaborative culture of the Internet. SPARC’s role in stimulating change focuses on the
following:

• Educating stakeholders about challenges in the scholarly communication system and the
opportunities for change;
• Advocating for policy changes that leverage technology to advance scholarly commu-
nication and that explicitly recognize that dissemination is an essential, inseparable
component of the research process;
• Incubating demonstrations of business and publishing models that leverage openness for
the benefit of scholarship and academic.

Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)

The aim of ROAR is to promote the development of Open Access by providing timely
information about the growth and status of repositories throughout the world. Open Access
to research maximizes research access and thereby also research impact, making research
more productive and effective. ROAR is hosted at the University of Southampton, UK and
is made possible by funding from the JISC. ROAR is part of the EPrints.org network. See
Figure R for ROAR homepage (Website: http://roar.eprints.org/). ROAR offers opportu-
nity for individuals to create an account for their institution’s repository in order to submit
records to the registry. Repositories can be browsed by either by country, year, repository
type, or repository software.
Open Access and institutional repositories are here to stay. Librarians and academicians
need to embrace this trend and get involved in self-archiving and sending the publications
to Open Access journals. There is also need for advocating this trend by librarians,
following the pace set by the coalition agencies like SPARC. This is a stepping-stone to
200 10 Open Access Publishing

greater heights in the library field. We talk of information societies and knowledge
societies, so we have to delve into it too. Open Access and institutional repositories help
in breaking the digital divide whereby more people gain access to scholarly publications.

The SHERPA/RoMEO Application Programmer’s Interface

RoMEO is part of SHERPA Services based at the University of Nottingham. RoMEO is a

searchable database of publisher’s policies regarding the self-archiving of journal articles
on the web and in Open Access repositories. If an academic author wants to put their
research articles online, they are faced with an increasingly complex situation. Evidence
shows that citations to articles made openly accessible in this way are taken up and cited
more often than research that is simply published in journals. Also, some funding agencies
require Open Access archiving for their research, to increase the use of the information
generated. However, some publishers prohibit authors from using their own articles in this
way. Others allow it, but only under certain conditions, while others are quite happy for
authors to show their work in this way. Authors can be left confused: RoMEO helps to
clarify the situation. RoMEO contains publishers’ general policies on self-archiving of
journal articles and certain conference series. The SHERPA/RoMEO Application
Programmer’s Interface (API) is a machine-to-machine interface which lets programmer’s
access RoMEO data from their applications. For instance, the API could be used to
incorporate the automatic look-up of journals or publishers into a repository’s deposition
process. Applications submit queries to RoMEO as HTTP requests, using the API’s URL
with appropriate query parameters attached. For example, http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
api29.php?pub=university%20press&qtype=all where: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
api29.php is the URL of the API. ?pub=university%20press is the first parameter. In this
example, “pub” is the name of the parameter (indicating a search for publisher’s name), and
“university%20 press” is its value. Note that the parameters are URL-encoded, so that a
space character is represented by the code “%20”. “+” may also be used instead—e.g.? pub
= university + press. & qtype = all is the second parameter. “qtype” is the name of the
query type parameter, and in this case, “all” indicates that all the strings specified in “pub”
must be present in the publisher’s name.
(Note: The first URL parameter is signified by a “?” character. Subsequent parameters
start with a “&”. The parameters can appear in any order, provided this convention is
maintained. Thus “. . .?qtype=all&pub=university%20press” is also valid.)
The HTML requests are sent to the SHERPA server where they are run against the
RoMEO database, and the results returned as an XML file. For test purposes, API requests
may be entered into the address bar of a browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox.
Properly structured XML should then be displayed.
10 Elsevier Journal Finder 201

Eight types of request can be made in this API:

• Publisher name (Search using keywords and strings);

• RoMEO Database Record ID (Search using ID number for a single publisher record);
• Journal Title (Search using keywords and strings get a list of matching titles);
• Journal Follow-up (Follow up a journal title search to get the publisher’s information);
• Journal ISSN (International Standard Serial Number);
• RoMEO Update Date (the date the publisher recorded as last updated);
• Country of the publisher’s head office;
• RoMEO Colour (RoMEO’s grading system for archiving permissions).

As an addition, there are three general parameters that can be used with any query:

• Access Key (Allowing registered users to bypass RoMEO’s access controls);

• Language (Returning data in a language other than English);
• Research Funder (Returning information on compliance with the relevant funder’s
open access mandates).

Elsevier Journal Finder

To find the right journal to submit a paper is one of the most important steps during the
process of paper publishing. For most authors, this job becomes difficult because many
journals have a wide diversity of topics, and many articles involve several academic
disciplines or professional specializations. The Scopus database is used as the source of
journals and papers for the Elsevier journal finder. The Scopus database is the largest
abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature from scientific journals, books,
and conference proceedings. It contains more than 78 million records and over 25,000
publishers and covers all major scientific domains: Agriculture, Chemistry, Economics,
Geo-Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Life and Health Sciences, Materials Science and
Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, and Social Sciences. The Elsevier journal finder uses
noun phrases as features for the paper matching and journal ranking algorithm. The noun
phrases are annotated and normalized by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine. The Elsevier
Fingerprint Engine (EFE) applies a variety of Natural Language Processing (NLP)
techniques to mine the input text and generates all relevant annotations, including sentence
boundaries, tokenization, part-of-speech tags, and phrase chunking. Noun phrases are
extracted based on a relatively simple pattern of part-of-speech (POS) tag sequences.
They have employed a simple noun phrase syntax, sketched in Backus-Naur-form:

• <NP> ::= <Pre> <NN> | <NN> | <NP> “in” <NP>

• <Mod> ::= “jj” | “nn” | “nn$” | “np”
• <Pre> ::= <Mod> | <Pre> <Mod>
• <NN> ::= “nn” | “np” | “nns”
202 10 Open Access Publishing

In this noun phrase grammar, POS tags are used as terminals (jj is “adjective,” nn is
“noun,” np is “proper noun,” nn$ is “possessive noun,” nns is “plural noun,” and in is
“preposition”). To improve feature generation however, we made the algorithm to select
subphrases of full noun phrases, in order to avoid a very sparse vector space containing
only very specific noun phrases. The journal recommendation ranking algorithm is divided
into two parts. The first part is matching the submitted query to existing papers in the
database. The Okapi BM25 algorithm is widely used in the domain of information retrieval.
It ranks matching documents according to their relevance to a given search query. The
ranking algorithm only works well if there are enough sample papers (at least more than
100) in each journal. However, for some new journals, there are not enough published
papers. To solve this problem, we asked the editors to select some papers from other
journals that are relevant to the scope of the new journals and then used these selected
papers as the sample papers for the ranking algorithm. Theoretically, the Elsevier journal
finder can recommend any journal in the Scopus database. Although the recommended
journals are limited to Elsevier journals only, the system can always recommend highly
relevant journals to the authors for their papers, since Elsevier has more than 5500 peer-
reviewed journals that cover almost all major scientific domains.

Springer Journal Suggester

To find the right academic journal is central to preventing the common mistake of editorial
rejection of manuscripts, prior to peer review. The Springer Journal Suggester is an
academic research tool that enables users to select the best-suited journal for their research.
The automated process can enable journal selection from a database of over 4800 Springer
publications. The web-based semantics technology refines a list of relevant journals, based
on inputs of manuscript title, abstract, and publishing model. The personalized recommen-
dation process will search Springer and BioMed Central to find the best publication that
suits the author’s choice. A refined list of potential journals can thereby assist authors to
delineate a core publication for their final manuscript submission. The web-based Journal
Suggester is easily accessible, requiring only an abstract/description of the unpublished
manuscript to find matching journals. When manually selecting the right journal for
manuscript submission, stepwise instructions below, via Springer and BioMed Central
can offer general guidance. Conversely, the online Journal Suggester automatically
considers the same key points, during the process of personalized recommendations:

• Choosing the theme;

• Choosing the audience;
• Type of article;
• Impact Factor;
• Publication timeline.
10 Review Questions 203

Springer journals conveniently present a list of Springer Videos for user-friendly

assistance on its online platform and on journal selection. When Journal Suggester provides
a list of target journals, SpringerLink journal tutorials can guide the selection of our final
choice. Automation offers a fast-track process for busy scientists to select a journal best
suited for their research with ease. If we are keen to publish fast, Journal Suggester provides
the option of deciding the maximum time to first decision. To strengthen our readership, it
is possible to select open access exclusively during the journal refining process. After
choosing the journal of interest, it is beneficial to identify a second and third choice of
interest as well. This provides a broader range of alternatives for consideration should the
first attempt at publication fail. This automation process of Journal Suggester is beneficial
overall for fast-paced and cutting-edge research publications. However, the portal’s
limitations would be its influence on broader research; for example, additional experiments
could increase the publication’s research impact. Furthermore, the manual process of
browsing journals may provide us first-hand experience on relevant journals, albeit time-
consumingly. The expected outcome of the automated Journal Suggester is to minimize
editorial rejection of manuscripts prior to peer review. Overall, the benefits of this
web-based academic research tool appear to outweigh its potential limitations.

Review Questions

1. What do you understand by open access publication? Explain its merits and demerits.
2. Which three initiatives made open access publications popular?
3. How can you promote open access publication in your research?
4. What are institutional repositories in open access publications?
5. Explain Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Advocacy in open access publications.
6. Explain open archival information system model.
7. What is SCOPUS database? Explain its search process.
8. Explain briefly Elsevier Fingerprint Engine.
9. What is the expected outcome of the automated Journal Suggester?
10. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) The Budapest Open Access Initiative
(b) The Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing
(c) Metadata Standards
(d) Gray Literature
(e) Open Archival Information System Model
(f) The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
(g) Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
(h) Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)
(i) SHERPA/RoMEO Application
(j) Elsevier Journal Finder
204 10 Open Access Publishing

Further Reading

Azarmi B (2014) Talend for big data: access, transform, and integrate data using Talend’s open
source, extensible tools. Packt Publishing, Mumbai
Jacobs N (2006) Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Chandos Publishing
(Oxford) Limited, Oxford
Jones C (2007) Institutional repositories: content and culture in an open access environment. Chandos
Publishing (Oxford) Limited, Oxford
Kang N, Doornenbal M, Schijvenaars B (2015) Elsevier Journal finder: recommending journals for
your paper. ACM, New York, NY. 978-1-4503-3692-5/15/09.
Millington P (2013) SHERPA document. The SHERPA/RoMEO Application Programmers’ Inter-
face (API). University of Nottingham, Nottingham
Mullen LB (2010) Open access and its practical impact on the work of academic librarians collection
development, public services, and the library and information science literature. Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Cambridge
Okpala HN (2017) Access tools and services to open access: DOAR, ROAR, SHERPA-ROMEO,
SPARC and DOAJ. Informatics Stud 4(3):5
Sampson DG, Dirk IJ, Spector M, Isaías P (2014) Digital systems for open access to formal and
informal learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Scheufen M (2015) Copyright versus open access on the organisation and international political
economy of access to scientific knowledge. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Solomon D (2008) Developing open access journals: a practical guide. (Chandos Publishing Oxford)
Limited, Oxford
Tavares R, Moreir A (2017) Implications of open access repositories quality criteria and features for
teachers’ TPACK development. Springer International Publishing, New York, NY
Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism
11

Overview

Most information or other forms of communication, including performance and visual arts,
that have been written, recorded, filmed or presented into the public domain in some way to
others can potentially be used. The basic principle of referencing is to support and identify
the evidence used in the assignments. As we progress through different levels of study in
higher education, we are expected to be increasingly more critical of ideas and theories and
their application in models and practices. Ideas are often a product of a particular period of
history and of the social, economic, and cultural norms and values of that time, and a
critical approach demands that we are aware of and able to acknowledge the source of
ideas. In so doing we are able to alert the reader to the origins of the ideas, theories, models,
or practices under discussion. Education needs ideas, arguments, and perspectives to thrive,
but these have to be tested rigorously and subjected to the critical scrutiny of others. This is
done by researching, preparing, and presenting work into the public domain. This is a
formidable task for any writer or commentator, and one that can take years to achieve.
Referencing is then, about respecting and honoring the hard work of writers and
commentators by acknowledging them in our assignments. Referencing can also help us
to find our own voice in assignments, by helping us write essays and reports that project or
reflect the way we see or perceive things. Evidence presented and correctly referenced
supports and strengthens our opinions and converts them into arguments.
Why reference? And why is there so much emphasis on referencing? Referencing in
Britain and Asian countries has to be seen, not just in an academic, but also in a social and
political context. It is a part of a societal value system that vigorously supports the idea of
the intellectual property rights of others. It has been argued that in countries characterized
by individualism, which includes competition, self-interest, self-reliance, and personal
achievement, the respect for copyright is usually strong. However, in societies with a

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 205
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_11
206 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

more collective ideology people are often more willing to sublimate their individuality to
the benefit of the community as a whole. Ideas are regarded as being more in the public
domain: to be shared and used for self or community improvement. In this social context,
copying is widely practiced as a legitimate form of sharing of ideas with others, without the
necessity to refer continually to a named originator. Referencing in a higher education
context is built on three key assumptions:

• The main purpose of referencing is to facilitate the development and transmission

of knowledge (powered by human endeavor and communication; referencing is one
element in this communication process).
• Referencing is a practical manifestation of the engagement with knowledge
(as student’s progress through higher education they are expected, increasingly to
become more critical of ideas and theories and their application in models and practices.
This critical approach includes the intelligent selection and presentation of ideas and an
awareness of their sources).
• The standardization of referencing practice supports this communication process
(presented in such a way that allows everyone who has learned the practice to recognize
and understand the meaning of codes and formulas presented).
Six knowledge-related reasons for referencing are:
• Facilitates the tracing of the origin of ideas: Academic study involves not just
presenting and describing ideas, but also being aware of where they came from, who
developed them, why and when. The “when” is particularly important. Ideas, models,
theories, and practices originate from somewhere and someone. These are often shaped
by the social norms and practices prevailing at the time and place of their origin, and the
student in higher education needs to be aware of these influences. Learning builds on
learning. However, like trying to discover the “real” source of a mighty river, there are
often many contributory networks to knowledge, and it is sometimes impossible to work
back to the beginning and to the origin of an idea.
• Helps to build a web of ideas: Knowledge connects and spreads the past, connects with
the present, and has an impact on the future. As we build our argument in an assignment,
it is rather like a spider building its web. We build carefully engineered connections
between ideas. We advance an argument in one section, but then counter it with another
threaded and connected group of ideas, each supported by its own referenced evidence.
• Supports our own voice in academic writing: Many students, when they enter higher
education, are confused about a gap they perceive between the conventions of academic
writing and the need to make their own points in essays. We can strive to gain ownership
of our own work in the following ways:
– We can decide which position or direction to take in an assignment.
– We can select evidence that allows us to present a strong set of arguments or
descriptions.
– We can summarize or paraphrase in our own words what we read.
– We can write in a style that comes from within.
11 Overview 207

• Validity of arguments: This is done by the presentation of reliable evidence, usually in

the form of facts, definitions, statistics, and other data that have an appeal to the
intelligence of a particular audience. This ageless principle can be applied equally to
written arguments. Referencing reliable and valid evidence in assignments has such an
appeal to the intelligence of the reader.
• Spreading knowledge: Referencing also presents an opportunity for the tutor and other
readers to advance their own knowledge. It gives them the possibility of tracing the
sources we cite and using the same evidence for their own purposes. We have probably
discovered already how useful bibliographies and lists of references at the end of journal
articles can be in identifying other related sources for our own research. Once we start
following up sources in bibliographies, it can open up a fascinating trail of knowledge.
• An appreciation: Education needs ideas, arguments, and perspectives to thrive. But
these have to be tested rigorously and subjected to the critical scrutiny of others. This is
done by researching, preparing, and presenting work into the public domain, which, as
was noted earlier, is a formidable task for any writer, and one that can sometimes take
years to achieve. Referencing is, then, also about giving appreciation: a modest genu-
flection to the work of others.

The selection of relevant evidence and accurate referencing is an important element in

the marking of assignments, particularly at postgraduate level. Accurate referencing can
often make the difference between a pass, credit, or distinction.
Referencing can be traced back to back to Roman jurists who provided very precise
references to the earlier legal treatises they drew upon. In other early manuscripts annota-
tion, glosses, or explanations were included to connect the finished work to its sources. The
invention of printing in the late fifteenth century that made ideas more accessible and
established the notion of an author. The growth of printing encouraged people to write and
to make a living from their ideas and talent for writing. It also encouraged the cult of
personality, and the emergence and promotion of artists distinguished by their style of
writing. This led to writers wanting to protect their work against plagiarism. The develop-
ment of printing also standardized the practice of annotation into printed footnotes. These
appeared within scholarly works from the eighteenth century onward. References appeared
in textbooks in footnotes and were referred to in the text by printer’s symbols, including
asterisks and daggers. These influenced the growth of referencing styles from the nine-
teenth century onward. The development and growth of universities in the nineteenth
century in Europe and the USA resulted in the mass examination of student knowledge
by way of essays and examinations. There was a rigorous testing of knowledge and, as part
of this, students were expected to cite the origins of ideas and offer detailed analysis and
interpretation of sources. Citing and analyzing the works of authors became a way for
students to demonstrate their scholarly engagement with a text. In the twentieth century, a
range of referencing styles have developed, all building on these earlier foundations.
208 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

Accurate referencing will help us to avoid being accused of plagiarism. Western

concepts of plagiarism are based on an economic model of capitalism and the notion that
someone can claim ownership of an idea if it has been presented in the public domain in
some tangible way. However, the explosion of global communication mediums has created
difficulties in identifying original sources of ideas, and there is a gray area between
deliberate cheating and carelessness with referencing or ignorance of it. The important
point to bear in mind in selecting evidence for use in assignments is about their credibility
and reliability, and distinguishing between primary and secondary sources.

• Primary source: This source deals with the evidence that comes directly from the
people involved in the event or phenomenon in question. This would include theories,
models, ideas, interpretations, definitions, and practices as described and presented by
their originators, rather than their commentators.
• Secondary sources: These sources include material produced about the event or
phenomenon, including the commentary or interpretation of others about theories,
models, ideas, definitions, and practices. They might also include, reportage material
in newspapers, magazines, reference books, and on the Internet.

At the end of our assignment we produce a list that is headed either “Bibliography” or
“References,” unless we have been asked by our tutor to include both in the assignment.
What is the difference between a list of “References” and a “Bibliography”? The terms are
often used synonymously, but there is a difference in meaning between them. References
are the items we have read and specifically referred to (or cited) in our assignment. A
bibliography is a list of everything we read in preparation for writing an assignment. A
bibliography therefore normally contains sources that we have cited and those we found to
be influential, but decided not to cite.
We should reference evidence in assignments in the following situations:

• To inform the reader of the source of tables, statistics, diagrams, photographs, and other
illustrations included in our assignment;
• When describing or discussing a theory, model, practice, or example associated with a
particular writer; or using their work to illustrate examples in our text (this links
specifically to the next two items);
• To give weight or credibility to an argument supported by us in our assignment;
• When giving emphasis to a particular theory, model, or practice that has found a
measure of agreement and support among commentators;
• To inform the reader of the sources of direct quotations or definitions in our assignment;
• When paraphrasing another person’s work, which is outside the realm of common
knowledge, and that we feel is particularly significant, or likely to be a subject of debate.
11 Plagiarism: Issue and Facts 209

There are four situations when we do not need to reference sources. These are:

• When presenting historical overviews;

• When presenting our own experiences;
• In conclusions, when we are repeating ideas previously referenced;
• When summarizing what is regarded as common knowledge.

Plagiarism: Issue and Facts

Anxiety, about being accused of plagiarism, underpinned many of the frustrations and
insecurities expressed by students in a research. Discussion about plagiarism has been a
dominant concern in higher education over the past decade and it is clear that many
students have got the message. However, it has also made many anxious about expressing
their own views in assignments, as they question if it really is their own view that they are
expressing, which in turn raises the issue of where do our own ideas come from? At what
point can we take ownership, of them? And can we risk presenting them as our own, when
these ideas may now be found, prolific and Internet-fresh, in the public domain? There is no
doubt that plagiarism continues to be a hot topic of discussion in higher education. But it is
certainly not a new phenomenon. It can be argued that all imitative learning is plagiarism.
We use ideas from other people all the time, weave them into our working and academic
lives, gradually taking ownership of them until we eventually forget who influenced us in
the first place; referencing becomes difficult, if not impossible, in some situations. Plagia-
rism is one of the number of practices deemed by universities/institutions to constitute
cheating, or a lack of academic integrity. These include (as we have discussed earlier also):

• Collusion without official approval between two or more students, with the result that
identical, or near identical work, is presented by all those involved;
• Falsification: where content of assignments, e.g., statistics, has been invented or falsely
presented by a student as their own work;
• Replication: where a student submits the same, or very similar piece of work, on more
than one occasion to gain academic credit;
• Taking unauthorized notes into an examination;
• Obtaining an unauthorized copy of an examination paper;
• Communication with other students in an examination in order to help, or be helped,
with answers;
• Impersonation of another person in an examination.

Life is not that simple, nor students so blatant, although a minority appear to be reckless
enough to plagiarize regularly and deliberately in this way. Howard has tried to unpick the
forms of plagiarism that can occur, cheating, non-attribution, and patchwork writing. The
first is done deliberately, while the second usually results from the inexperience of the
210 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

student with referencing, or from misunderstanding about academic conventions. The third
results when a student tries to put together bits of assorted, copied text to make up an
unsatisfactory whole; or what Barrett and Malcolm call omission paraphrasing, which is
when a student copies in a single source and selectively changes words and sentences to
make it fit the assignment. This latter practice moves them into a gray area betwixt
paraphrasing and plagiarism and can lead to criticism, or worse, loss of marks. When
students are asked what proportion of their peers are engaged in plagiarism, the estimates
tend to be high. So why do students do it? One reason may be that they have always done
it—maybe to the point when it becomes ritualized behavior, and because it is easier and
more tempting now than it ever has been to do it. Dordoy found the most common reasons
cited by students for cheating were related to grades, poor time management and ease of
opportunity:

• To get a better grade (59%);

• Because of laziness or bad time management (54%);
• Because of easy access to material via the Internet (40%);
• Because they did not understand the rules (29%);
• Because it happens unconsciously (29%).

Dennis also found a similar range of reasons given by students for why others cheated.
The reasons given by 80 students were ranked as follows, with the most frequently cited at
the top:

• They started too late and ran out of time;

• They simply could not do the coursework otherwise;
• They did not think it was wrong;
• They have to succeed;
• They got higher marks this way;
• They did not need to learn that material, just pass the module;
• They could not keep up with the work;
• They wanted to see if they could get away with it;
• They felt the tutor did not care, so why should they;
• They thought paraphrasing would be disrespectful.

Putting the issue of plagiarism aside, many academics discourage form of patchwork
writing by arguing that the process of summarization and paraphrasing helps students to
gain a deeper level of understanding about a topic. By converting the ideas into a choice of
one’s own words, we have to think hard about them and thus gain a deeper level of
knowledge. This may be true, but some of us may not see it like this. Students/researchers,
and not just those from overseas, argue that to put together an argument by patchwork
copying does require an understanding of the topic. It requires the ability to select and
connect ideas, and this cannot be done successfully if the student does not have a grip on
11 Plagiarism: Issue and Facts 211

the main arguments and counter-arguments around a topic. The convention of academic
writing in higher education is still largely one where we are encouraged to step back from
the assignment topic and look down at it, and to describe the scene in an objective way. In
Britain, students/researchers are still largely discouraged from writing in the first person.
The able, experienced student has learned the art of selecting material to suit his own
viewpoint, but presenting it in a way that gives the veneer of objectivity to the reader thus
satisfying the conventions and traditions of academic writing. The postgraduate student,
and certainly one with his or her first degree experience in the UK/US, has usually learned
how to do this. However, the undergraduate and international postgraduate student can
both struggle with this, not really knowing what is expected.
Plagiarism prevention, rather than prosecution, tends to be the approach adopted by
most British/American universities, although some have been driven to take action to
discipline, and even expel students, for worst-scenario case plagiarism, which are usually
cases involving repeated incidences of copying wholesale from texts without any attempt at
acknowledgment of the original source. Attention has also turned to schools and colleges in
an attempt to discourage pupils (and parents) from plagiarism, so that by the time students
enter higher education they would have learned effective referencing and techniques of
summary and paraphrasing. Universities are also using software to detect where copied text
has been slotted into assignments. Software, such as Turnitin and Ferret, can compare
submitted assignments with a database of billions of web pages, and highlight passages that
are directly copied. Some institutions are also encouraging students to check their
assignments against the software, to highlight and change copied areas before they submit
the work. This seems to be producing some positive results. If higher education is devalued
by a view from the outside that the degree is not worth the paper it is printed on, then this
will do no good for either the morale of teachers or our morale—and career prospects. To
avoid plagiarism applying, analyzing, criticizing or quoting other people’s work is per-
fectly reasonable and acceptable providing always:

• Attempt to summarize or restate another person’s work, theories or ideas and give
acknowledgment to that person. This is usually done by citing your sources and
presenting a list of references.
• By always using quotation marks (or indenting lengthy quotations in the text) to
distinguish between the actual words of the writer and our own words. Once again,
we should cite all sources and present full details of these in our list of references.

It can be sometimes difficult, to avoid using some of the author’s original words,
particularly those that describe or label phenomena. However, we need to avoid simply
copying out what the author said, word for word. Choose words that we feel give a true
impression of the author’s original ideas or action.
212 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

Referencing Styles

All referencing styles are built on the same idea of citing a source in the text of an
assignment, either with a name or a number. The name or number connects with the full
source details in a footnote, endnote or a bibliographic list. There are an estimated
14 referencing styles to be found within higher education in the world, although they fall
into 3 main groups:

• In-text name styles: These styles involve giving (or citing) the name(s) of author(s) or
organization(s) in the text with the year of publication (or page number for MLA style).
All sources are listed alphabetically at the end of an assignment and labeled
“References,” “Reference list,” “Work cited,” “Works consulted” or “Bibliography,”
according to the style. Names of referencing styles are Name–date (Harvard), American
Psychological Association (APA), The Modern Language Association of America
(MLA), Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA), Chicago (Turabian),
Council of Science Editors (CSE).
The pros are:
– Most useful when all sources are printed, and these have one or more designated
authors;
– Easy to follow the chronological progress of a particular debate;
– Easy to add or subtract in-text citations and references (particularly useful for last
minute assignments!);
– Relatively easy to learn; easy to teach;
– Familiar: recognizable from many book and journal articles;
– No distraction from the text to look at footnotes or endnotes.
The cons are:
– Less useful when citing and referencing sources without authors and/or dates, and
particularly Internet references;
– Can be awkward for citing television, radio and other audio-visual sources;
– Long-winded for citing secondary sources;
– In-text citations are normally counted in assignments on most degree courses, as the
student takes “ownership” of evidence cited. This can add significantly to the word
count.
Examples:
– APA: Yadav, S. K. (2020), Research and Publication Ethics, New Delhi: Ane Books
Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
– Chicago: Yadav Santosh Kumar, 2020, Research and Publication Ethics, New
Delhi: Ane Books Pvt. Ltd.
– MLA: Yadav Santosh Kumar, Research and Publication Ethics, New Delhi: Ane
Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
– MHRA: Yadav S. K., 2020, Research and Publication Ethics, (New Delhi: Ane
Books Pvt. Ltd).
11 Referencing Styles 213

– CSE: Yadav S. K., 2020, Research and Publication Ethics, New Delhi: Ane Books
Pvt. Ltd.
• Consecutive numbering: This style uses superscript numbers in the text that connect
with references in either footnotes or chapter/assignment endnotes (usually the former)
This system uses a different and consecutive number for each reference in the text. A list
of sources is included at the end of the assignment, which lists all the works referred to
in the notes (“References,” “Works cited”). Some tutors may also require a list of all
works consulted in preparation for the assignment (i.e., a “Bibliography” or “Works
consulted”). Names of referencing styles are British Standard (running notes), MHRA,
Chicago (Turabian), Oxford: Oscola.
Examples:
– MHRA: Yadav Santosh Kumar, Research and Publication Ethics, (New Delhi: Ane
Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020).
– Chicago (Turabian): Yadav Santosh Kumar, Research and Publication Ethics,
New Delhi: Ane Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
– British Standard: Yadav Santosh Kumar, “Research and Publication Ethics,” New
Delhi: Ane Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
• Recurrent numbering: This style uses bracketed or superscript numbers in the text that
connect with a list of references at the end of the chapter/assignment. The same number
can recur, e.g., if a source is mentioned more than once in the text our tutors may also
require us to include a bibliography, which could include additional sources consulted,
but not directly referred to in the text. Names of referencing styles are British Standard
(numeric), Vancouver, IEEE, Council of Science Editors (CSE).
Examples:
– British Standard: Yadav, S. K. (1st ed) Research and Publication Ethics, New
Delhi: Ane Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
– IEEE: S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics, New Delhi: Ane Books Pvt.
Ltd., 2020.
– Vancouver: Yadav, S. K., Research and Publication Ethics, 1st ed. New Delhi: Ane
Books Pvt. Ltd., 2020.
– CSE: Yadav, S. K. 2020, Research and Publication Ethics, 1st ed., New Delhi: Ane
Books Pvt. Ltd.

Referencing styles can become adopted because of recommendations from the librarian
at the institution, or because of departmental affiliations to style guides produced by an
organization representing the interests of a professional group or discipline. Other reasons
for the adoption of a particular style include departments imitating departments across
institutions; an arbitrary past decision by someone in a department, probably now long
gone; or because of an institutional or departmental decision to standardize practice.
214 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

Name–Date (Harvard) Style of Referencing

The name–date (Harvard) style does indeed appear to have its origins at Harvard Univer-
sity. Chernin argues that it grew from a referencing practice developed by Edward
Laurens Mark, professor of anatomy and director of Harvard’s zoological laboratory,
who in turn appears to have been inspired by a cataloguing system in the Library of
Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. The basic idea of the Harvard style is to:

• Use citations (a partial reference) in the text, by citing the last or family name of the
author(s), or organizational name, and the year of publication in the text of an
assignment;
• List all references in full and in alphabetical order at the end of an assignment;
• ensure that the name used in the citation connects with the name used to start the full
reference entry.

Although British Standard recommendations are the benchmarks for the Harvard style
in Britain and entire world, these are not prescriptive and so have been interpreted
differently between higher education institutions. The students need to follow the
recommendations on these stylistic matters given by their own institutions. Citing the
source as we write involves giving a partial or shortened reference (last/family name of
author(s) and year of publication) in the main body of our written assignment and then
giving full details of the source in full at the end of the assignment in a “References” or
“Bibliography” section. We can abbreviate lengthy organizational names in the citations
providing to explain the citation in the full reference. The name used in the text citation
connects with the full reference entry. The full list of references at the end of the assignment
for just these four citations would look like this, and in this alphabetical order. We can
introduce citations into the text in a variety of ways. The two key points are:

• The importance of giving credit to authors who have influenced our ideas and
arguments;
• The importance placing the citation in the sentence in a way that makes clear the
authorship or origin of the source.

If there is no specific author name, or the term “Anon.” is not shown in lieu of a name,
look for the name of an “originator,” particularly an organizational name in the case of
websites. In printed material, if no author’s name is shown, we can cite the title of the work,
or an abbreviated version of this. In the References or Bibliography section at the end of an
assignment the basic format for listing references in the Harvard style is shown, as follows:

• All sources are listed in alphabetical order by last name or name of originator; as stated
earlier, the citation connects with the alphabetical item in the reference.
11 Name–Date (Harvard) Style of Referencing 215

• Where there is a named author, start with the surname/last name/family name, followed
by the initials of the author’s first names. Where there is more than one author, the
initials of the first name of the second and subsequent writers precede the last name, for
example: Santosh Kumar Yadav, Mamta Sharma, Sandeep Kumar Sharma (2017),
Concepts of Education Management, New Delhi: Ane Books Pvt. Ltd.
• The forename(s) can be reduced to initials, as shown above, provided that the identity of
the person is not obscured by doing this. It is common practice in the Harvard, APA, and
numerical styles to use initials only of forenames for printed material, although British
Standard examples of Harvard and numerical referencing show the full forenames of
originators of most audio-visual material and public performances of creative work.
• Compound and hyphenated last names, such as Russell-Harris, should be alphabetized
by the first part of the compound.
• If the name of author is shown as Anon., this goes alphabetically into the list. If there is
no author or originator’s name shown, and Anon. is not presented in lieu of an author’s
name, a title for printed material (as used as a citation) can be substituted. The first letter
of the first proper title word can be the guide to placing it alphabetically in the list of
references.
• If we are including several works by the same author, they are listed in chronological
order, with the earliest work first.
• If we have references with the same first author, but different second and third authors,
arrange these alphabetically by the surnames of these subsequent following authors.
• Author name is followed by the year of publication. Although British Standard does not
show the year in brackets, as stated earlier, it has become common practice now in the
Harvard style to do this to differentiate it from other similar name–date styles. The year
of publication should be easy to find on printed documents; just look at the printer’s
imprint and copyright page, which usually follows immediately after the main title page.
All the information we need should be there, including name of publisher, where
published, when first published and edition. Always show the edition number for the
source we looked at although the edition is different from the impression or reprinted
number.
• This is followed by the title of the main source consulted. The main source is usually
emphasized in some way, e.g., underlined or italics. The main source would be, for
example, the title of a book, name of the magazine, journal or newspaper, item title from
an Internet site, broadcast production source, title of video or CD-ROM, etc. Whichever
mode of emphasis we choose—underlining or italics—keep it consistent throughout.
• If our source is a chapter from an edited book, then give the name or names of the editors
of the book, followed by the title of the edited book, underlined or in italics. To
distinguish the name of the editor(s) from the writer, the initials of the editor(s) should
precede the last name.
• In most printed items, we would give details of the publisher. We first give the name of
the town or city where the source was published, followed by the name of the publisher.
216 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

• In the case of a journal article, we finish with the reference details of volume, edition/
issue number (if shown) of the journal and the page number(s) of where the article can
be located within the journal.

Abbreviations in References

Abbreviations in the text of assignments are not generally encouraged by tutors, except in
scientific and technical writing, in tables, graphs and charts, and in relation to the terms
“ibid,” “op cit.” and “loc cit.” In footnotes and in lists of references or bibliographies they
can be used, although clarity always takes precedence over brevity in references. We
should use a full word if the abbreviation might confuse readers. British Standard
guidelines, the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, and the APA style guide
all give advice on abbreviations commonly found and acceptable within full references. For
Harvard, MLA, Chicago, and British Standard numerical styles, the months of the year in
full reference can be abbreviated, except May, June, and July. The APA style shows all the
months of the year spelt in full. Table below shows certain abbreviations:

Term Abbreviation
Abbreviated/abbreviation abbr.
Abstract abs.
Adapted adapt.
Bibliography bibliogr. (MLA: bibliog.)
Compact disc read-only CD-ROM
Cassette cas.
Chapter ch. or chap.
Circa c. or ca.
Department of... Dept. of. . .
Diagram diagr.
Disk dk.
Edition edn.
(Revised edition) Rev. edn.
Second edition, etc. 2nd edn.
Editor(s) ed/s.
Electronic mail e-mail
Figure fig.
Folio fol.
From fr.
Index ind.
Number/number No./no.
No date n.d.
Opus (work) op.
(continued)
Reference Foreign Author Names 217

Term Abbreviation
Page/pages pp. p./pp.
Paragraph par.
Record(ed) rec.
Summary sum.
Supplement suppl. (MLA: supp.)
Table tab.
Technical Report Tech. Rep.
Variant var.
Volume vol.

Reference Foreign Author Names

When alphabetizing names for citations and reference lists in languages other than English,
we should treat the last name in accordance with the conventions that apply in the country
of origin. For instance, when the name of an author consists of several words, the choice of
entry word is determined as far as possible by agreed usage in the country concerned. In
parts of Asia, for example, a father’s personal name is commonly combined with the son’s
name, so that in two-worded names the second is the father’s personal name, and not the
family name. We may need, therefore, if we are unfamiliar with these conventions, to seek
advice from the librarian at our institution or the help of a fellow student from the country
in question.
In European names:

• French: The de following a first name is not normally used with the last name for
referencing purposes. However, there are some exceptions, as follows: when De is
normally used or associated with the name, e.g., De Quincy; or when the last name has
only one syllable, e.g., de Gaulle; or when the name begins with a vowel, d’Arcy; or
when the prefixes Du and Des are applied.
• German: the prefix von is usually not used with the last name in references, unless it has
become associated by tradition and convention with a particular person.
• Italian: Renaissance or pre-Renaissance names are cited and alphabetized by first name,
e.g., Leonardo da Vinci. Post-Renaissance and modern Italian family names are often
prefixed with da, de, del, della, di or d’, which should be included in the reference,
although the alphabetization should be with the last name, e.g., De Sica, placed in the
alphabet under “S.”
• Spanish: last names should be shown in full, e.g., García Márquez; García Lorca. The
prefix Del is capitalized and used with the last name for referencing purposes.
218 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

In Arabic names:
Arabic last names that begin with “al-” or “el-” should be alphabetized against the name
that follows, e.g., al-Hakim, would be listed under “H.” Arabic names that begin with
“Abu,” “Abd,” and “Ibn” are similar to Scottish names beginning with “Mac,” so they
should be alphabetized accordingly, e.g., “Abd” would precede “Abu.”
In Asian names:
In some countries, e.g., China, Korea, and Japan, the family name is followed by a given
or personal name. So the male Chinese name “Mao Zedong” consists of the family name:
“Mao,” and his given or personal name: “Zedong.” However, full names often consist of
three parts, e.g., “Kim Yong-il.” In this example, “Kim” would be treated as the surname,
while “Yong” indicates the generation of the person, and “il” the personal name. If an
author’s name does not easily conform to APA or any other European or North American
referencing style guides—where it is relatively easy to establish what is the “surname,”
“last name” or “family” name—then it is reasonable, and culturally respectful, to give the
name in full in the citation, which is repeated in the same order in the full reference; If an
author has adopted a Christian-European name, which they place first in their full name,
this should be reversed in the reference.

Avoiding Plagiarism as an Author

For us as an author to avoid plagiarism, the best way is learning and compliance with the
basic principles of good academic from our academic career’s starting. As signaled by the
University of Oxford’s website “avoiding plagiarism is not simply a matter of making sure
our references are all correct, or changing enough words so the examiner will not notice
our paraphrase; it is about deploying our academic skills to make our work as good as it
can be.” Further from the perspective of the global scientific integrity, as points by a new
book edited by Japan Society for Promotion of Science Editing Committee, “Scientists
should themselves take positive steps to learn a new the nature of principled research and
to build upon that concept in fostering the next generation of scientists so as to soundly
advance science and establish public trust in it.” In Singapore Statement on Research
Integrity, there are total of 14 principles and professional responsibilities among which
Article 7 requires “Researchers should acknowledge in publications the names and roles of
those who made significant contributions to the research, including writers, funders,
sponsors, and others, but do not meet authorship criteria.” We should know these rules
which are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken. In other
words, if we are an honest scientific author, we have to fulfill these responsibilities. In
recent years, a growing number of leading universities have provided their own rules of
conduct for scholarly authors, whether undergraduates, postgraduates, or faculty. Some
outstanding examples are listed below.
11 Avoiding Plagiarism as an Author 219

• Cornell University: Code of Academic Integrity (http://cuinfo.cornell.edu/aic.cfm)

• Harvard University: Harvard Guide to Using Sources (http://usingsources.fas.
harvard.edu/icb/icb.do)
• Harvard Medical School; White Paper: Plagiarism and Research Misconduct
(2010) (http://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/About_Us/COI/files/plagia
rism_statement_121510.pdf)
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): Academic Integrity at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: a handbook for students (2012) (http://
web.mit.edu/academicintegrity/handbook/handbook.pdf)
• Princeton University: Academic Integrity (2011) (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/
integrity/pages/intro/)
• Yale University: (http://writing.yalecollege.yale.edu/advice-students/usingsources/
understanding-and-avoiding-plagiarism/what-plagiarism)
• University of Cambridge: University-wide statement on plagiarism (http://www.
admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/statement.html)
• University of Oxford: Plagiarism (http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/
skills/plagiarism)
• University of Tokyo: Code of Research Integrity (2006, in Japanese) (http://www.u-
tokyo.ac.jp/ja/administration/codeofconduct/index.html)
• Zhejiang University: Academic ethical code and management policy (2009-No.
15—Document, in Chinese) (http://xfjs.zju.edu.cn/redir.php?catalog_id=5&object_
id=346)
• Australian National University: Academic Misconduct Rules 2014 (http://www.
comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01785)

Some publishers also provide guidance on their websites for authors; for example,
Elsevier offers educational materials for authors on “Ethics in Research and Publication”
(http://www.elsevier.com/ethics). And Wiley-Blackwell has its “Best Practice Guidelines
on Publication Ethics—a Publisher’s Perspective” (https://authorservices.wiley.com/
bauthor/publicationethics.asp) in English, Chinese, and Japanese, respectively. Particularly
based on its Author Services, authors will learn not only what are both ethical broad ethical
issues and practical points, but also be aware of principle of transparency that requires
authors must let the reader know who did the work and has the work been published before
in order to avoid plagiarism and promote research integrity. In 2015, JZUS became the first
Chinese journal to post an Anti-Plagiarism Policy (http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus/Policy.php)
that will be journal guidelines for the authors, which clear point. The following are
acceptable, provided always that:

(a) the quotation (if any) is typographically identified (by quotation marks or, for
longer extracts, indentation),
(b) the source is acknowledged in the text,
(c) a full citation to the original is given as under:
220 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

• Quotation of a modest amount (under 100 words) of the author’s own or other’s
text;
• Paraphrase of previously published text in the author’s own words;
• Repetition of someone else’s ideas;
• Reproduction of a chart, image, table, or key equation from your own or someone
else’s work (provided copyright permission has been obtained from the original
copyright owner, and acknowledgment is included in whatever form they
request);
• In Biosciences papers it is acceptable to reproduce the description of a standard/
homemade method from a previously published source, provided the source is
properly acknowledged;
• Republication of a previously published conference paper is acceptable, if 60% or
more of the content is new and substantive (provided copyright permission has
been obtained from the original copyright owner, and acknowledgment is
included in whatever form they request).
• Republication of a paper in translation is acceptable only if, in the view of the peer
reviewers, it is necessary in order to reach part of the intended readership, and
then only with copyright permission from the original publisher.

The following are unacceptable in any circumstances:

• Duplicate publication of an entire article;

• Major plagiarism of the work of others (SMSI >10% or OSI >35%);
• Serious self (or team)-plagiarism (SMSI >10% or OSI >35%);
• Review papers which reproduce substantial amounts of the texts discussed (OSI >35%)

Other author’s work should always be treated with the same respect that would wish for
our own work. That means:

• Not relying excessively on quoted (or our own previously published) material;
• If we have nothing new to add, don’t write it!
• Always identifying the source of ideas, words, data, figures, etc., with a full citation to
the originally published source, whether the work is our own or someone else’s.
Reference styles differ from journal to journal, but are generally variants of the
Vancouver style (common in science, technology and medical journals) or the Harvard
style (more usually found in social sciences and humanities journals).
• Always identifying actual quotations from someone else’s work with quotation marks
(if the extract is short) or indentation (if it is long). Bear in mind that copyright issues are
likely to arise if we are quoting substantial passages (or non-textual material, such as
figures, graphs or diagrams) from anyone else’s work; we need to seek the original
publisher’s permission (the author’s permission alone is not enough). Even if reword,
11 Detecting Potential Plagiarism 221

rephrase, summarize or translate someone else’s writing (or own previously published)
material, we should still credit the original source.

Detecting Potential Plagiarism

There exists a variety of online tools which can compare a submitted text with texts already
in its database or freely available online. The most widely used are CrossCheck, which is
mainly used for texts in English, and Academic Manuscript Literature Checking (AMLC)
from China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) that almost covers all contents of
Chinese Integrated Knowledge Resources Database and is mainly used for texts in Chinese.
These tools enable journal editors to check submitted material against large databases of
already published content, and to produce succinct statistical reports of the amount of
similar or identical wording found. The author’s editorial team relies on CrossCheck,
which is described in detail in this chapter, to carry out these checks.
CrossCheck powered by iThenticate is an initiative started by CrossRef, or PILA-the
Publisher International Linking Association that is an association of scholarly publishers
that develops shared infrastructure to support more effective scholarly communications,
because in 2006 the Board of the CrossRef project raised plagiarism as an area of particular
concern. The CrossCheck plagiarism detection project (http://www.crossref.org/
crosscheck/index.html) was piloted with seven international publishers and a technology
partner (iParadigms) during late 2007 and early 2008. CrossCheck was commercially
launched in June 2008, and won the ALPSP Award for Innovation in the same year.
CrossCheck is an international project intended to help cope with the high incidence of
plagiarism in recent years, by reliably detecting the extent of duplication between texts. It is
led by its parent organization, CrossRef, and many global publishing groups are members.
Four distinct types of plagiarism were identified, which we consider sufficiently serious to
be considered as a form of academic misconduct:

• Duplicate publication: Identification of duplicated text is not difficult using

CrossCheck. However, currently CrossCheck is unable to check duplication in figures
and tables, so we have recourse to other sources (Google, PubMed Central, etc.) for
further analysis of articles highlighted by CrossCheck.
• Self-(or team) plagiarism: This can frequently be found in papers of authors from the
same research program. Some authors, or even program leaders, believe that this is
justified by different focuses in the same research project, even when the equipment and
methods adopted are the same; thus they do not feel it is unreasonable to duplicate parts
of the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. Once a paper is published the
authors should not recycle any of its content in new papers. Self-plagiarism wastes not
only the publication resources of journals but also the time of readers. Instead, authors
should simply cite previous studies, giving no more than an overview in their current
paper.
222 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

• Direct copying of Methods section, with new data inserted: This is a particularly
common phenomenon in biomedical papers, where all or part of the Methods section
may be copied verbatim, only changing some of the experimental conditions and data.
Some authors feel that it is an acceptable to copy all or part of the Methods section from
a previously published article, simply inserting their own data.
• Uncited or excessive extracts: When we raised the matter with the author, he/she
argued that, since his/her own view was identical to that of the other author, it was
acceptable to use the same words without citation. However, such conduct misleads
readers into believing that they are reading the author’s own words and, quite apart from
its academic impropriety, this is an infringement of copyright. Sometimes, too, authors
believe that, with a full citation, it is reasonable to copy whole paragraphs from other
papers; this is not the case, and the fair dealing rules always apply. The phenomenon of
copy and paste is also all too common, particularly in papers from non-English-speaking
authors. In a few extreme cases, we found that many sentences and whole paragraphs
were identical to those in published papers, and scarcely any of the words were the
author’s own.

Piracy is defined as the appropriation of ideas, data, or methods from others without
adequate permission or acknowledgment. Again, deceit plays a central role in this form of
misconduct. The intent of the perpetrator is the untruthful portrayal of the ideas or methods
of their own. Plagiarism is a form of piracy that involves the use of text or other items
(figures, images, tables) without permission or acknowledgment of the source of these
materials. Plagiarism generally involves the use of materials from others, but can apply to
researcher’s duplication of their own previously published reports without acknowledg-
ment (this is sometimes called self-plagiarism or duplicate publication). Academia is not a
perfect world; inevitably academic journals all over the world are likely to encounter these
or similar problems. As editors, we have a responsibility to promote professional ethics.
CrossCheck enables us to see that most scientists do behave ethically. However, it is up to
the editorial community to propose criteria and processes for handling these types of
academic misconduct. In this way we can help to protect the copyrights of original authors,
and promote the healthy development of academic journals.

Critical Analysis

Critical analysis is about looking at a subject from a range of perspectives, and following or
creating logical arguments. There is a choice of six directions of critical analysis in
academic and research:

• Agreeing with a particular point of view, and giving good reasons to support it;
• Rejecting a particular point of view, but again using reliable evidence to do this;
11 Critical Analysis 223

• Conceding that an existing point of view has merits, but that it needs to be qualified in
certain respects, and stating what these are;
• Proposing a new point of view, or reformulating an existing one, backed with
supporting evidence;
• Reconciling two positions, which may seem at variance, by bringing new perspectives
to bear on the topic;
• Connecting or synthesizing different ideas, so that new approaches and points of view
can be advanced.

It is important for every academic writer to avoid this narrow-minded argumentation

trap; academic works are not only about compiling existing arguments, but adding new
perspectives, finding new arguments, or new ways of combining existing knowledge.
Referencing a work indicates that the writer finds the referenced material important;
hence references create academic clout in an assignment. In the global academic commu-
nity a more-cited article will find more recognition.
What to include in critical analysis (as reference):

• Originator or creator of the source: this should be the starting point for the reference.
The originator or creator can be the name, nickname or nomenclature of the author,
writer, editor; or name of a government or government body, an organization, institu-
tion, group, or website/website host.

Then include the following:

• Date: the year of origin of the information, and other specific dates, if relevant, e.g., in
the case of newspapers, journals, etc.
• Title: title and subtitle of source in question. If the creator/originator of the source is
unknown, the reference can be started with the source title.
• Specific identifiers: for example, the nature of the source, e.g., [DVD], volume and
edition numbers, and page numbers.
• Where to locate the source: this can be the location and name of the publisher/
originator; or in the case of the Internet, a web address.
• The golden rule of referencing: The Golden Rule of referencing is to give an interested
reader enough information to help them easily and quickly find the source we have cited.
If they wanted to look at our source and check it for themselves, could they find it easily
with the information we have supplied?
224 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

Referencing Electronic Sources

Electronic sources are very important to students/authors/researchers. The Internet is quick,

accessible, and easy to use and, if the right keyword searches are made, it can produce
useful evidence for assignments. However, there are drawbacks to use electronic sources
and students/researchers often experience considerable difficulty in citing and referencing
them. The apparent absence of authorship details, dates, page numbers on some websites,
plus length of some website addresses, can cause so many problems. Citation of sources in
the text of an assignment can also cause difficulty, with the students often uncertain what to
put. The common mistakes we made are:

• We should not put a www address as a citation. We always put the name of an author, or
the source organization, but never cite a uniform/universal resource locator (URL) or
digital object identifier (DOI) address in the body of an assignment unless there is
absolutely no other way of identifying the source.
• We do not need a separate list of www sites in our References, Works cited, or
Bibliography sections. In all referencing styles, Internet sites are incorporated along
with other sources into one list at the end of the assignment.
• Another common mistake is to simply paste in a URL address to a list of references,
without any other supporting information, such as the title of item, name of hosting
organization, or date the information was viewed.

There are four main principles or guidelines to referencing electronic sources:

• First, and this is common for all referencing styles, the citation should link with the full
reference. What appears in the citation, either a name or a number, will connect with the
full reference entry.
• Second, tutors should be directed as closely as possible to the online information being
cited and referenced. This usually means giving the complete URL addresses or DOI
tags to take our tutors to the same screen we looked at, rather than leading them to just
home or menu pages. Digital object identifiers offer a more permanent means of finding
a source, as URLs are vulnerable to change if the site is moved to another host. Digital
object identifiers sources are given an alphanumeric label that will track sources and
thus offer a more persistent and consistent way of locating them.
• Third, ensure to show website addresses that work! There is nothing more frustrating
than to type out the URL address given, only to find later that the address given is
incorrect. Make sure that we have copied them or pasted them in correctly.
• Fourth, because sites do disappear without warning, it is wise to print out copies of
sources used for citation purposes to show a tutor, if required, and some tutors will insist
us to do this. These copies can be included in an appendix, or a note included in the
assignment for the reader to the effect that they can be made available to the tutor, if
required.
11 The Future of Plagiarism 225

The following elements are listed in the order in which they appear in a full reference
entry. However, there may be occasional exceptions to this rule. This may be because of
particular referencing style guidelines, or because of the nature of the source or the context
in which it is to be used in an assignment. We can include the following:

• Originator: the person or organization taking the main responsibility for the source;
• Year of origin. This element is second listed in the case of Harvard, APA, and MLA
styles;
• Title of work consulted;
• Type of medium;
• Publisher and place of publication;
• Date of publication;
• Online address or location within portable database;
• Name of database, if applicable;
• Other identifying features;
• Date looked at the information.

The Future of Plagiarism

Honesty is the best policy for research and publication. In addition to transparency, honesty
is crucial if one wants to succeed as an author, researcher, journal publisher, or editor. As
Alisher Navoiy, the national poet of Uzbekistan said as long ago as the fifteenth century:

Truthfulness is the essence of honourable people. Two themes are seen within it.
Firstly, be honest not only in words But also in thoughts and deeds.
Secondly, scorn the world of falsehood But speak out the truth intrepidly.
Both qualities are good in themselves And together mark greatness of spirit.

We can borrow from Cicero’s words:

We are not born for ourselves, our country has given us the responsibility’ to interpret the
responsibilities of science, that is, researchers, authors, journal publishers and editors, we are
not born for ourselves, our work has given us a real responsibility, that is to say, we must be
responsible for the facts and truth.

Scientists have to be responsible for gathering data carefully, using appropriate analytical
and statistical techniques, reading more previous writings or printing information, and
finally reporting their results accurately. Some researchers or authors have found guilty of
plagiarism can pay a high personal price due to their academic misbehavior. However,
during discussion with Prof. Kiang about “Thoughts on Intellectual Property and
Practical Implications,” he mentioned “for the most part, an intellectual offense is usually
unpunished except for some damage to one’s reputation.” So today as a senior scientist, he
226 11 Referencing and Avoiding Plagiarism

strongly stresses it is time to think of “enforcing edicts against plagiarism; perhaps an

analogy may be made to the history of enforcing laws against drugs and alcohol, etc.”
We can predict that the Future of Plagiarism almost has a limited market because these
strict policies and new digital techniques (ORCID, CrossCheck, etc.) are the bane of it,
although we have to admit that plagiarism is an eternal topic in human society, and we
cannot stop all plagiarism, which will always exist somewhere, just as there will always be
drugs, always corruption, etc. More police cannot stop it. But we can positive steps to
reduce it, don’t we think?
Below are six concluding points:

• The whole world should pay attention to research integrity;

• Create a culture of transparency in science and publication;
• Take the honesty as the best policy for researchers and authors;
• Make responsibility the foundation of scientific research and publication;
• Sanctions are necessary in scientific and publishing areas;
• We can never completely eradicate plagiarism, but we have to make it morally and
culturally unacceptable!

So as to sum up, Integrity, Transparency, Honesty, Responsibility, and Sanctions, these

are the keywords in the fight against plagiarism in the past, present, future.

Review Questions

1. What do you understand by term referencing of literature?

2. Why is referencing in higher education a unique context?
3. What are primary and secondary sources in referencing?
4. What is the difference between a list of “References” and a “Bibliography”?
5. Which are those four situations when we do not need to reference sources?
6. How can we introduce citations into the text in a variety of ways?
7. Explain basic format for listing references in the Harvard style.
8. Explain choice of six directions of critical analysis in academic and research.
9. What is the future of plagiarism?
10. Write Short Notes on the following:
(a) Plagiarism: Issue and Facts
(b) Referencing Styles
(c) Name–Date (Harvard) Style of Referencing
(d) Reference Foreign Author Names
(e) Avoiding Plagiarism as an Author
(f) Potential Plagiarism
(g) Referencing Electronic Sources
Further Reading 227

Further Reading

Angélil-Carter S (2000) Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Pearson Education, Harlow

Dordoy A (2003) Cheating and plagiarism: staff and student perceptions at Northumbria. Working
paper presented Northumbrian conference: ‘educating for the future’, Newcastle
Gustavii B (2003) How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Hart M, Friesner T (n.d.) Plagiarism and poor academic practice—a threat to the extension of
e-learning in higher education? Academic Conferences Limited. www.ejel.org. Accessed
13 Mar 2006
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (n.d.) Transactions, journals, and letters:
information for author. http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/authors/transjnl/index.html.
Accessed 20 Aug 2006
Maimon EP, Peritz JH, Yancey KB (2007) A writer’s resource: a handbook for writing and research.
McGraw Hill, New York
Neville C (2009) How to improve your assignment results. McGraw Hill/Open University Press,
Maidenhead
Neville C (2010) The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism. Open University Press,
McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire
Rumsey S (2004) How to find information: a guide for researchers. Open University Press,
Maidenhead
Walker JR, Taylor T (1998) The Columbia guide to online style. Columbia University Press,
New York
Zhang Y(H) (2016) Against plagiarism, a guide for editors and authors. Springer International
Publishing Switzerland, Cham
Database and Research Metrics
12

Overview

The study on database technologies, or more generally, the technologies of data and
information management, is an important and active research field. Recently, many
exciting results have been reported. After decades of development, today’s database
systems all have numerous features, making it very difficult to choose these features
toward the need of the specific applications using them. For example, building indexes
and materialized views often dramatically improve the performance on a given query
workload, but it is very difficult to select the necessary indexes and views because such
decision depends on how these queries are executed. On the other hand, the cost of
hardware has dropped dramatically. Thus, the cost for human to tune and manage the
database systems often dominates the cost of ownership. To reduce such cost, it is desirable
to automate database tuning and administration. Database tuning and administration
include physical database design and tuning system parameters. Physical database design
includes selecting indexes, views, vertical partitioning and horizontal partitioning, parallel
database design, etc. Tuning system parameters includes selecting the serializability level,
locking granularity, placement of log files, buffer pool size, RAID levels, cache sizes and
placement, etc. There are many research problems unsolved in this area. First, very little
work has been done in automatically tuning system parameters, and it is challenging to
predict the system performance after changing such parameters. Second, little is known on
how to adjust the system to changes of the workload. Ideally, the database system shall be
able to automatically adjust to such changes. Third, given the numerous features to tune, it
remains challenging to identify the system bottleneck as well as to tune all these together.
The purpose of data integration is to support seamless access to autonomous, heteroge-
neous information sources, such as legacy databases, corporate databases connected by
intranets, and sources on the Web. Many research systems have been developed to achieve

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 229
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_12
230 12 Database and Research Metrics

this goal. These systems adopt a mediation architecture in which a user poses a query to a
mediator that retrieves data from underlying sources to answer the query. A wrapper on a
source is used to perform data translation and local query processing. Intensive research has
been conducted on challenges that arise in data integration. The first challenge is how to
support interoperability of sources, which have different data models (relational, XML,
etc.), schemas, data representations, and querying interfaces. Wrapper techniques have
been developed to solve these issues. The second challenge is how to model source
contents and user queries, and two approaches have been widely adopted. In the local-as-
view (LAV) approach, a collection of global predicates is used to describe source contents
as views and formulate user queries. Given a user query, the mediation system decides how
to answer the query by synthesizing source views, called answering queries using views.
A growing number of emerging applications, such as sensor networks, networking flow
analysis, and e-business and stock market online analysis, have to handle various data
streams. It is demanding to conduct advanced analysis and data mining over fast and large
data streams to capture the trends, patterns, and exceptions. Recently, some interesting
results have been reported for modeling and handling data streams for a comprehensive
overview, such as monitoring statistics over streams and query answering. Furthermore,
conventional OLAP and data mining models have been extended to tackle data streams,
such as multi-dimensional analysis and classification. While extending the existing data
mining models to tackle data streams may provide valuable insights into the streaming data,
it is high time we considered the following fundamental question: Compared to the
previous studies on mining various kinds of data, what are the distinct features/core
problems of mining data streams? In other words, from mining data streams, do we expect
something different than mining other kinds of data?
The spatio-temporal database (STDB) has received considerable attention during the
past few years, due to the emergence of numerous applications (e.g., flight control systems,
weather forecast, mobile computing, etc.) that demand efficient management of moving
objects. These applications record object’s geographical locations (sometimes also shapes)
at various timestamps, and support queries that explore their historical and future (predic-
tive) behaviors. The STDB significantly extends the traditional spatial database, which
deals with only stationary data and hence is inapplicable to moving objects, whose dynamic
behavior requires re-investigation of numerous topics including data modeling, indexes,
and the related query algorithms. In this section, we survey the existing solutions for these
issues.
Currently, bio-informatics has become one of the research areas that receive most of
attention. In general, bio-informatics aims to solve complicated biological problems, e.g.,
gene regulatory network induction, motif discovery, etc., with computation algorithms.
Many of the data are in the form of sequences, e.g., DNA sequences, protein sequences, etc.
It is widely believed that the functionality of these biological sequences is highly dependent
on the structures. Automatically extracting/analyzing the biological structures is an impor-
tant step in better understanding their functionality. Clustering has been widely recognized
as a powerful data mining technique and has been studied extensively during recent years.
12 Bibliometrics Milestones Year by Year 231

The major goal of clustering is to create a partition of objects such that objects in each
group have similar features. The result can potentially reveal unknown object groups/
categories that may lead to a better understanding of the nature. In the context we address,
each object is a symbol sequence and all potential features of a sequence are encoded
(implicitly) in the specific symbol layout in the sequence. It is interesting to notice that
these structural characteristics sometimes can uniquely determine the functional properties
of the sequence and often plays a decisive role in meaningful clustering of the sequence.
The use of derived data to facilitate access to base data is a recurring technique in many
areas of computer science. Used in hardware and software caches, derived data speeds up
accesses to the base data. Used in replicated systems, it improves reliability and perfor-
mance of applications in a wide-area network. Used as index structures, it provides fast
alternative access paths to the base data.

Bibliometrics

Bibliometrics are an inevitable part of the conversation a goal they must strive for or a
hurdle they must leap over. But what are bibliometrics exactly, and how did they come to
dominate our modern sense of what makes impactful research? We can have a look at the
twentieth-century origins of bibliometrics before continuing on to a more detailed discus-
sion of the present-day state of the field, including major categories of metrics, popular
bibliometric tools, and the bibliometric practices of twenty-first-century researchers and
librarians. Bibliometrics was therefore born not only at a time when books and journals
monopolized scholarly communication, but also in an academic era that had yet to see the
rise of personal computers, let alone word-processing, the Internet, or mobile devices. Its
early champions were also almost exclusively scientists and science-oriented librarians,
whose mutual interest in scientometrics another mid-century “-ometrics” field that focused,
as one might guess, on measuring science scholarship set the disciplinary tone for
bibliometric research for decades to come. Today, bibliometrics has evolved into a signifi-
cantly broader field of study but its focus on print-based methods of communication and
analysis has continued more or less unchanged. For purposes of this book, we will define
bibliometrics as a set of quantitative methods used to measure, track, and analyze print-
based scholarly literature.

Bibliometrics Milestones Year by Year

• 1961: Eugene Garfield founds the Institute for Science Information (ISI).
• 1963: ISI releases the Science Citation Index (SCI).
• 1973: ISI releases the Social Science Citation Index.
• 1975: ISI releases SCI Journal Citation Reports with impact factor calculations.
• 1977: ISI adds new types of citable non-article materials to the Science Citation Index.
232 12 Database and Research Metrics

• 1978: ISI releases the Arts & Humanities Citation Index.

• 1979: The new journal Scientometrics is first published.
• 1988: ISI releases the SCI on CD-ROM.
• 1992: Thomson Scientific & Healthcare acquires ISI and becomes Thomson ISI.
• 1997: Thomson ISI’s new Web of Science Core Collection launches online.
• 2002: Web of Knowledge launches as a consolidated research platform.
• 2004: Elsevier launches Scopus as a competitor to Web of Science.
• 2005: ISI is dropped from Thomson ISI and becomes Thomson Scientific.
• 2005: Jorge E. Hirsch invents the h-index for quantifying scientific research output.
• 2007: Thomson Corporation acquires the Reuters Group to become Thomson Reuters.
• 2007: Ann-Wil Harzing releases the first version of the program Publish or Perish.
• 2008: The new h-index metric is added to Web of Knowledge.
• 2008: Thomson Reuters adds citation mapping tool to Web of Science.
• 2011: Thomson Reuters launches the Book Citation Index.
• 2011: Google announces the new Google Scholar Citations feature.
• 2012: Thomson Reuters launches the Data Citation Index.
• 2013: Thomson Reuters launches the Scientific Electronic Library Online Citation
Index.
• 2014: Thomson Reuters launches the second generation of InCites, including Essential
Science Indicators and Journal Citation Reports in one platform.

Most of the impact metrics might be grouped into four levels, which distinguish between
the items different metrics choose to focus on rather than the methods they produce their
results by. These levels are as follows:

• Level 1: Metrics focused on individual scholarly contribution.

• Level 2: Metrics focused on the venues that produce individual scholarly contributions.
• Level 3: Metrics focused on author output over time.
• Level 4: Metrics focused on group and institutional output over time.

Calculating Journal Impact Factor

An important and predictive measure of research impact in research is the Journal Impact
Factor (JIF) of the journal in which the article appears. The JIF is the average number of
citations per article per year. It is an indication of the importance and uptake of that
research, denoting the relative importance of a journal within its field, like journals with
higher impact factors are deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. Impact
factors are generally calculated yearly. As with the times cited metric that underlies impact
factor, it’s important to remember that no single source can provide 100% complete data
about journal citation patterns. In fact, since the classic impact factor is only calculated for
sources indexed in Web of Science (see the Proprietary Article Databases section in this
12 Calculating Journal Impact Factor 233

chapter for more about Web of Science’s sources), many smaller academic journals and
journals outside the STEM disciplines simply don’t have an impact factor, even though
they have strong reputations within their areas of specialization. Most of the faculties are
surprised to discover this gap when searching Web of Science or JCR for the first time and
can feel flustered or discouraged by the lack of a particular journal’s inclusion. For this
faculty, it may be worth informing them about alternatives to Web of Science’s suite of
journal metrics.
To understand impact factor, we can take an example. Let us begin with an imaginary
journal called Journal of Bibliometrics. In the two previous years, 2018–2019, Journal of
Bibliometrics published a total of 1000 citable items in its issues. Citable items are defined
by Web of Knowledge and include all items of scholarly substance, from peer-reviewed
articles to reviews.
Let A = Total citable items published by the journal in the 2 previous years A = 1000.
Next, we do a comprehensive search of the references of all the scholarly items indexed
within Web of Science this year, 2019.
In doing this, we may discover that these 1000 citable items published by Journal of
Bibliometrics between 2017 and 2018 were collectively cited a total of 3000 times—again,
just in the year 2019.
Let B = Total number of times that the items in A were cited in the current year
B = 3000.
To arrive at the impact factor for Journal of Bibliometrics, we simply divide the total
number of collective citations from this year by the number of citable items published by
the journal in the previous 2 years.
The result is an average of three citations per citable item, when examined 1–3 years
after publication, which we call an impact factor of 3.0.

Impact factor = B=A

3000 total citations ð2019Þ=1000 citable items ð2017–2018Þ = 3:0

The ratio of 2-year impact factor (2YIF) to 2-year impact factor without self-citations
(2YIF*) is intended to capture how journal self-citations inflate an impact factor of a
journal. An Impact Factor Inflation (IFI) is defined as “IFI = 2YIF/2YIF*”. The minimum
value for IFI is 1, with any value above the minimum capturing the effect of journal self-
citations on the 2-year impact factor. ISI has implicitly recognized the inflation in journal
self-citations by calculating an impact factor that excludes self-citations and provides data
on journal self-citations, both historically and for the preceding 2 years, in calculating
2YIF. The Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR) is the difference between
citations in other journals and journal self-citations. If S = journal self-citations, STAR is
defined as “STAR = [(100 - S) - S] = (100 - 2S).” If S = 0, 25, 50 or 100, for example,
STAR = 100, 50, 0, and -100, respectively. As STAR can be calculated using journal self-
234 12 Database and Research Metrics

citations, both historically and for the preceding 2 years, historical STAR is H-STAR and a
2-year STAR is 2Y-STAR.
Article Influence is intended to measure the average influence of an article across the
sciences and social sciences. As an article with zero citations cannot have influence, a more
suitable measure of the influence of cited articles is Cited Article Influence (CAI), which is
defined as “CAI = (1 - PI-BETA) (Article Influence).” If PI-BETA = 0, then CAI is
equivalent to Article Influence; if PI-BETA = 1, then CAI = 0. As Article Influence is
calculated annually, whereas PI-BETA is updated daily, CAI may be updated daily.
Disadvantages of impact factor are:

• The Impact Factor is an arithmetic mean and doesn’t adjust for the distribution of
citations.
• The JCR doesn’t distinguish between citations made to articles, reviews, or editorials.
• The Impact Factor only considers the number of citations, not the nature or quality.
• We can’t compare Impact Factors like-for-like across different subject areas.
• Impact Factors can show significant variation year-on-year, especially in smaller
journals.

Immediacy Index

Immediacy index is another journal-level metric developed by Thomson Reuters and

published as part of JCR. It operates similarly to both, except immediacy index focuses
only on the citation patterns and publications of a single calendar year whereas impact
factor and 5-year impact factor metrics look to balance article citations generated within a
single year with citable items published by a journal in the previous 3 or 5 years (respec-
tively). For example, if a journal has a 2018 immediacy index of 0.350 that would indicate
that in 2018, each citable item published by the journal generated an average of 0.350
citations within the same year it was published. Because many articles take more than a
year to start generating citations by other scholarly works, immediacy indices for journals
tend to be quite low, with few reaching higher than a value of 1.000. Again, however, this is
not the case for every specialization, and certain journals may choose to specialize in
publishing cutting-edge research. Users within a given discipline may be interested in
JCR’s alternative aggregate immediacy index essentially an average of the immediacy
indices for all journals within a JCR-defined subject area.

Cited Half-Life, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score

Cited half-life is considered another metric published via Web of Science’s JCR it refers to
the median age of the items cited in the current JCR year. As an example, if a journal has a
cited half-life of 10 years that means half of the citations generated by the journal in the
12 SCImago Journal Rankings 235

current year come from items the journal published in the last 10 years. As an impact
metric, cited half-life therefore indicates in theory about how long articles published by the
journal continue to be considered impactful, although as JCR is quick to point out, “a
higher or lower cited half-life does not imply any particular value for a journal.” This
caveat is partly a nod to the fact that different disciplines and different types of publications
have different expectations for currency and usefulness when it comes to their citations. A
journal that publishes primary research would presumably have a longer cited half-life than
one publishing reviews or secondary research on a quickly evolving topic like educational
technology. On a related note, some librarians have found the cited half-life metric useful
for purposes of collection weeding (e.g., binding or archiving only those journals with
relatively high cited half-lives).
Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score are interesting examples of metrics based on the
same citation data as Thomson Reuters’ JCR but developed independently by a team of
researchers at the University of Washington, led by cofounders Jevin West and Carl
Bergstrom. Based on algorithms that combine advances in network analysis with infor-
mation theory, both Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score use citations to measure the
impact of scholarly journals according to the broad dissemination of their articles, such as
the frequency with which researchers might encounter concepts that stem from articles
published by that journal. Both calculations begin with 5 years’ worth of citation data
almost double the number of years examined by traditional impact factor and proceed by
following a journal’s published articles as they are cited by various papers. For more
information about how to interpret Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score, refer the FAQ
page on the Eigenfactor website (http://www.eigenfactor.org/faq.php).

SCImago Journal Rankings

Affiliated with both the SCImago Lab group and Elsevier’s Scopus database, SCImago
Journal Rankings (SJR) is a relatively new but increasingly popular metric for journal-level
impact. Like its competitor, Web of Science, Scopus works by indexing citations from
academic journal articles across a range of publications, dates, and disciplines. However,
unlike Web of Science, which grew its own bibliometric formulas out of the ISI in the
1970s, Scopus’s bibliometrics are provided by an outside group called SCImago, and then
subsequently displayed within Scopus’s journal-level records. As for the value of SJR, it
provides the major alternative to Web of Science’s impact factor as it is similarly aimed at
measuring the level of impact a journal has on its field or discipline. However, ScImago has
developed its ranking based on a more complex method than ISI. According to researchers,
SJR is based on Google’s PageRank algorithm an approach to impact that uses elements of
probability as well as actual cases of use (i.e., citation). More information about the formula
and rationality for the SJR algorithm can be found in a white paper titled, “The SJR
Indicator: A New Indicator of Journal’s Scientific Prestige.”
236 12 Database and Research Metrics

Source Normalized Impact Per Paper

Source Normalized Impact per Paper, known more commonly as SNIP, is a metric
calculated by the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden Univer-
sity. It is closely related to but independently calculated and maintained from SCImago’s
SJR. SNIP is based on another metric called Raw Impact per Paper (RIP), which is
comparable to both impact factor and SJR. As an impact metric, SNIP is unique because
it attempts to correct for varying sizes and citation rates across different scientific fields to
allow for a fairer comparison of metrics across each discipline. Realistically, the result is a
virtual flattening of the normal distribution curve we could plot with SJR metrics for
indexed scientific journals in Scopus. Thus, journals with higher SJR numbers will
sometimes see their SNIP metrics decrease, and journals with lower SJR numbers will
occasionally see increases in their SNIPs. It is also important to note that while SNIP was
created by CWTS to compare scientific discipline journals only, every journal in Scopus is
given a SNIP value alongside its SJR value. Our unofficial observation has been that SNIP
values for non-science journals don’t adequately equate to SNIP values within science
disciplines, so that the flattening effect cannot be observed across all journals.

H-Index

The H-index, sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number, was first developed by
Hirsh as a measure to quantify the impact and quality of the published work of a scientist or
scholar. A scientist has index h if h of his Np papers has at least h citations each, and the
other (Np - h) papers have no more than h citations each. In other words, a scholar with an
index of h has published h papers, each of which has been cited in other papers at least
h times. As an example, if the h-index is 15, we have 15 papers cited 15 times or more. If
our h-index is 20, we have 20 papers cited 20 times or more. Citation reports in Web of
Science and citation tracker in Scopus calculate the h-index of a search result. Harzing’s
Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on Google Scholar entries. Various
proposals to modify the h-index in order to emphasize different features have been made.
Bornmann et al. recently proposed three additional metrics, h2lower, h2center, and
h2upper to give a more accurate representation of the distribution shape. Scientists with
high h2upper percentages are perfectionists, whereas scientists with high h2lower
percentages are mass producers. It was first suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005 as part
of a paper on the relative quality of theoretical physicists, the Hirsch index, or h-index, has
fast become one of the best-known bibliometrics for comparing the impact of different
authors over time. H-index is calculated by using the number of articles an author has
published to date (h) to determine a citation count threshold, which the author’s articles
must meet or pass over (also h) to be included as part of the index. The more prolific the
author, the higher the potential for the final index value. This index cap can be frustrating
for early career researchers, whose h-indexes may appear very low, despite having
12 Fuzzy Metrics: Non-citation-Based Bibliometrics 237

authored one or more articles that have generated a very high number of citations. H-index
does not account for works other than articles or citations that appear outside of articles.
The debate over the advantages and disadvantages of h-index as a measure of impact has
been active for years and has helped spawn the creation of numerous variation metrics,
such as g-index, a-index, h2-index, h5-index, and countless others.

H5-Index and H5-Median

In regular research, h5-index and its corollary h5-median are journal-level impact metrics
that are increasingly popular due to their inclusion in Google Scholar Metrics. Many
readers may already be aware that Google Scholar tracks times cited for individual author
contributions. However, fewer readers are aware that Google Scholar Metrics maintains
metrics at the journal level, just like Web of Science and Scopus. Its metrics, the h5-index
and h5-median, are based on citations collected from the last 5 years of a journal’s
publication history. The h5-index seeks to determine how many of those articles have
been cited at least h times during the 5-year period. Consequently, an h5-index metric of
200 means that the journal has published 200 articles in the past 5 years that have been cited
at least 200 times each. As of 2013, the highest h5-index was 349 for the journal Nature. As
one might expect, the h5-median takes the journal articles included in the h5-index and
returns the median number of citations they have generated.

Fuzzy Metrics: Non-citation-Based Bibliometrics

While interest in the impact of journals and journal articles have historically driven
advances in the field of bibliometrics, other forms of citable print-based scholarship,
from books to conference proceedings to datasets, have gradually made their way into
the makeup of the field, thus changing the approach of some toolmakers to indexing and
bibliometric calculation and putting pressure on individual researchers to identify quanti-
tative measures of impact and quality that go beyond simple article-to-article practices of
citation. The difficulty of this, of course, is that bibliometrics is a field by definition reliant
on both quantitative methods and the world of print. This means that any print-based item
that defies quantitative analysis must occasionally be shoehorned into a bibliometric
perspective with highly variable results. Many of these metrics are statistical translations
of qualitative practices pulled directly from the publishing and library worlds hence why
they are not typically recognized as actual bibliometrics yet they still can have tremendous
value to researchers who work with a variety of printed outputs or are just seeking to tell a
more robust story about their recent accomplishments within a field. Such metrics may also
hold inspiration for researchers whose work extends into nonprinted outputs, such as
performances, exhibitions, and conference presentations.
238 12 Database and Research Metrics

The Categories of Bibliometrics Tools

These tools may be considered as the best-known sources of bibliometrics. These are
typically made available to researchers through institutional subscriptions, such as those
managed by the library. Their impact calculations are based on data from within their
article indexes, which are by necessity large and interdisciplinary. Categories of tools can
be hard to define in bibliometrics, in part because of the natural desire on the part of
toolmakers to create resources that address multiple levels of impact at once or in different
portions of the same overall dashboard. Even tools that clearly address one purpose or level
of impact today can easily change to address a different (or additional) level tomorrow a
story of change we have seen played out many times as the market has expanded for new
types of academic analysis.

Web of Science

Web of Science is interdisciplinary and covers all scientific areas, but it only covers what it
considers to best journals and concentrates on English language ones. Data about each
article is entered into the database in a uniform structured way: author, title, date, journal
name. This means we get accurate retrieval when searching for those things. Web of
Science is the best-known proprietary bibliometrics tool for scholars in search of citation
data and the most commonly available (at least in terms of priority subscriptions managed
by academic libraries with sufficient populations of science researchers). The first step in
our walk-through is to perform a search on Garfield’s name in the Web of Science database.
Using the resource’s Author Index, we find that we can identify and compare citations
affiliated with all the scholars listed under the abbreviated name “Garfield E” a nod to the
prevalence of APA style, which truncates author’s first names to only display their initials.
Eventually, we decide to select the index options of “Garfield E” and “Garfield Eugene” for
a total of 1210 articles. Web of Science is more or less synonymous with the term
bibliometrics; it was the first database to track the web of citations created when scholars
cite other’s works, the method by which we can create bibliometrics. Though other tools
now exist, Web of Science is still considered by many to be the premier source for
bibliometrics, and it is certainly the most well-known. Web of Science is comprised of
multiple indexes and complementary resources. The majority of Web of Science’s citations
are drawn from the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts &
Humanities Citation Index. Today, these indices, along with additional resources with
specialized citations, such as chemical reactions and conference proceedings, are combined
to form the Web of Science Core Collection. Together these form the basis for Web of
Science’s citation coverage. Thomson Reuters considers many factors when choosing
journals for inclusion in Web of Science of the process and factors at Web of Science’s.
In practice, Web of Science has the strongest coverage in STEM disciplines and favors
journals with English language, peer review, and a longer publication history. At the center
12 Scopus 239

of Web of Science Core Collection are three flagship Citation Indexes, namely, the Science
Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) earlier known as SCI (Science Citation Index), the Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). These
Citation Indexes cover the world’s top tier international and regional journals whose
evaluation and selection are governed by the Web of Science Core Collection Journal
Selection Process; a well-established set of criteria that have been applied consistently for
over 50 years. Emerging Sources Citation Index is a new edition in Web of Science Core
Collection. ESCI is a multidisciplinary Citation Index covering all areas of the scholarly
literature of the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities.

Journal Citation Reports

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is another product in the Thomson Reuters suite of tools.
Since all of these products (including JCR and Web of Science) are built based on the same
set of citations from the Web of Science Core Collection, they can all be considered to be
databases that arise from the same set of citation data. But while Web of Science is
primarily concerned with tracing the web of citations and times cited, JCR steps up one
level from the individual article level (Level 1) to consider metrics at the journal level
(Level 2). JCR contains a few journal-level metrics but is most well known as the only
place to get journal impact factor. JCR was very recently revamped, so the screenshots may
not look familiar to long time JCR users, but we like the changes; the revision is a more
intuitive navigation experience, with the left-hand navigation bar taking the place of several
drop-downs and removing the previous clunky welcome page.

Scopus

Scopus is a bibliographic database containing abstracts and citations for academic journal
articles. It covers peer-reviewed journals in the scientific, technical, medical, and social
sciences. It is owned by Elsevier. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of
peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. Delivering
a comprehensive overview of the world’s research output in the fields of science, technol-
ogy, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to
track, analyze and visualize research. As research becomes increasingly global, interdisci-
plinary, and collaborative, you can make sure that critical research from around the world is
not missed when we choose Scopus.
In 2004, Elsevier announced the arrival of Scopus, the first competitor to Thomson
Reuter’s monopoly on citation indexing. Scopus continues to serve an important role in
diversifying options for those seeking metrics while giving Thomson Reuters healthy
240 12 Database and Research Metrics

competition, which has ultimately resulted in better products competing for valuable
library funds. On paper, Scopus and Web of Science have similar coverage; both tout
journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. However, experience
shows that Scopus has a stronger emphasis within the non-science disciplines. Scopus
indexes citations and their bibliographies back through 1996 compared to 1900 in Web of
Science. Both contain older citations from these bibliographies, but coverage is limited.
One big philosophical difference between the two relates to the level of control that each
maintains over its products. Scopus has a demonstrable history of working with outside
partners to deliver metrics and information based on Scopus’s citation database while Web
of Science develops the majority of its information in-house. The use of Scopus and GS
[Google Scholar], in addition to WoS [Web of Science], helps reveal a more accurate and
comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors.

Google Scholar Citations, Profiles, and Rankings

Google Scholar is not a human-curated database but a search engine of the whole internet
which narrows the internet results based on machine automated criteria. Google Scholar
provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, we can
search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts, and court
opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories,
universities, and other websites. Google Scholar helps us find relevant work across the
world of scholarly research.
Google Scholar entered into the metrics field with the addition of Google Scholar
Citations in 2004. On the surface, Google Scholar operates similarly to Web of Science
and Scopus, indexing journals and providing citation counts to scholarly literature. How-
ever, the scope of what is considered for indexing in Google Scholar is, in practice, much
broader than either proprietary database, drawing on publicly available literature in institu-
tional repositories, in online publications, and even from published webliographies. As a
product of the ever-popular Google-verse, Google Scholar Citations has proven an invalu-
able resource for many researchers who are unable to find citation counts or journal
rankings through other databases. Google Scholar also offers author-level (Level 3) metrics
through its Scholar Profiles. Using this tool, researchers can self-identify their own
publications and then see their respective h-index and i10-index scores based on these
publications. i10-index is the number of publications with at least 10 citations. In July
2011, Google Scholar started a tool, which allows scholars to keep track of their own
citations and also produces an h-index and an i10-index. These profiles underwent a slight
redesign in August 2014, but continue to be a good way for scholars to enhance their online
presence.
12 Altmetrics 241

Additional Bibliometric Tools

There exist some more citation-based tools that scholars may have occasionally found
useful in calculating their impact. The following is a list of some of those tools, which
readers may choose to pursue at their own discretion and interest.

• BibExcel: A data generating tool designed to assist a user in analyzing bibliographic

data. https://bibliometrie.univie.ac.at/bibexcel/
• CiteSpace: A network analysis and visualization tool that allows users to answer
questions about the structure and dynamics of acknowledge domain. http://cluster.cis.
drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/
• Leiden Institute’s list of institutional rankings: An online ranking resource that
covers 750 universities worldwide based on factors and uses a sophisticated set of
bibliometric indicators. http://www.leidenranking.com/
• Pajek: A Windows program that allows for the visualization and analysis of large
networks and can be freely downloaded for non-commercial use. http://pajek.imfm.si/
doku.php?id=pajek
• Science of Science (Sci2) Tool: A modular toolset for scientists that supports the
temporal, geospatial, topical, and network analysis and visualization of scholarly
datasets. https://sci2.cns.iu.edu/user/index.php
• SITKIS: A free bibliometric tool that works on both Java and Microsoft Access. https://
sites.google.com/site/sitkisbibliometricanalysis/
• Scholarometer: Formerly Tenurometer, this browser extension that provides a smart
interface for Google Scholar and allows for additional features like user filtering and
social tagging. http://scholarometer.indiana.edu/

Altmetrics

Altmetric (http://altmetric.com) is a London-based company founded in 2011 that has

come to dominate the altmetrics product market due to its success in partnering with
traditional publishing sources such as Nature and Wiley Journals. As a toolmaker,
Altmetric offers a variety of products designed to account for both different metric levels
and different academic audiences (and different audience price points). These products
revolve its primary feature: the Altmetric “donut.” This colorful circle shows users at a
glance the altmetrics activity surrounding a particular article. The donut colors show the
type of metric (tweets, blogs, Mendeley, CiteULike, etc.) and relative activity (the larger
the color within the circle, the greater the activity), while the number inside the circle gives
you the Altmetric score—a Level-1 metric to show the overall altmetrics activity level for
that article. The term altmetrics is the brainchild of Jason Priem, a graduate student at
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has since become one of its best-known
public advocates. It first gained widespread attention within the impact community through
242 12 Database and Research Metrics

the publication of the “Altmetrics: A Manifesto” on the website “altmetrics.org,” which

Priem registered in September 2010. As a term, altmetrics is a portmanteau, formed from
the combination of “alternative” and “metrics” (originally hyphenated as “alt-metrics”). On
Altmetric.org, the definition of altmetrics is given as “the creation and study of new metrics
based on the social web for analyzing and informing scholarship.” This definition reflects
three distinctive characteristics for all metrics within this school of impact. First, altmetrics
is inseparable from the Internet, and more specifically, from the social aspects and areas of
the Internet known as the social web. Second, altmetrics is driven by the new, both in the
sense of the necessary creation of new metrics and the availability of new data related to the
social web. And third, altmetrics is always tied back in some way to scholarship. Following
this mid-2000s change in the use and popularity of online networks waves of new
discussion within the field of bibliometrics. As impact scholars began to look more closely
at the flow of information on the Internet at large, they began to recognize innovative
practices and tools for scholarly communication—practices such as the saving or
bookmarking of on-line works for later reading and the availability of article-level metrics
(ALMs) from prestigious online journals, such as PLOS ONE in 2009. This alternative set
of metrics was discussed under many different names, including web-based bibliometrics,
Scientometrics 2.0, and the aforementioned webometrics term. That altmetrics eventually
prevailed as the name most favored by members of the impact community is more likely a
reflection of the content and timing of the altmetrics manifesto than an endorsement of the
term itself. In any case, the result was the sudden recognition of the field of altmetrics
in 2010.
Altmetrics Milestones Year by Year:

• 1990: Tim Berners-Lee writes the first web browser as part of the World Wide Web.
• 1994: Social Science Research Network (SSRN) launches.
• 1997: Tomas C. Almind and Peter Ingwersen coin the term webometrics in a published
paper.
• 1998: International DOI Foundation (IDF) is created to develop the digital object
identifier (DOI) system.
• 2003: Social bookmarking service Del.icio.us (now known simply as Delicious) is
founded.
• 2004: Online social networking service Facebook launches at Harvard University.
• 2004: Richard Cameron begins developing academic social bookmarking site Cite
U Like.
• 2006: The first full version of Twitter becomes available to the public.
• 2006: Open access peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE is established.
• 2008: Academic networksAcademia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate launch online.
• 2008: The ResearcherID author identification system is introduced by Thomson
Reuters.
• 2010: The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) nonprofit is founded.
• 2010: Dario Taraborelli launches ReaderMeter.
12 Research Gate (RG Scores) 243

• 2010: Jason Priem coins the term altmetrics via Twitter.

• 2010: Jason Priem, Dario Taraborelli, Paul Groth, and Cameron Neylon publish “Alt-
Metrics: A Manifesto.”
• 2011: Mark Hahnel launches the online digital repository Figshare.
• 2011: Andrea Michalek and Mike Buschman start altmetrics-focused Plum Analytics.
• 2011: Euan Adie founds Altmetric, an altmetrics aggregator site.
• 2012: Jason Priem and Heather Piwowar launch Total-Impact (later renamed
Impactstory).
• 2012: Elsevier partners with Altmetric to add altmetrics data to Scopus.
• 2013: Elsevier acquires Mendeley.
• 2014: EBSCO Information Services acquires Plum Analytics.
• 2014: Wiley officially partners with Altmetric to add altmetric data to its journals.
• 2014: Impactstory announces a new individual subscription model.

Research Gate (RG Scores)

ResearchGate (http://www.researchgate.net) is a more recent example of a free and popular

academic peer network, this time aimed toward the science disciplines. Founded in 2008 by
2 physicians and a computer scientist, ResearchGate is designed, like Social Science
Research Network (SSRN) (http://ssrn.com), to help researchers “connect, collaborate,
and discover scientific publications, jobs, and conferences.” To use the site, researchers
sign up for a free account that allows them to identify publications they have the authored,
institutions they are affiliated with, disciplines and subdisciplines they work in, and areas of
skill and expertise. Using this data, ResearchGate generates a researcher profile similar to
Google Scholar Citations, in that users can get a quick sense not only of a researcher’s
background but also his or her contributions to the field and an array in-network use
statistic. RG Score is a metric unique to the academic social networking site ResearchGate,
and it purports to measure “scientific reputation based on how all of our research is
received by your peers.” RG Score is calculated based on an internal algorithm that
combines the number of contributions authored by a researcher; who is interacting with
each contribution on ResearchGate (i.e., the reputations of those interacting with
contributions); and how these researchers are receiving and evaluating these contributions.
For these reasons, if users with high RG scores are interacting with our research, our RG
score will see an increase. This also means that users with high RG scores know that they
can leverage this reputation to increase the reputations of fellow ResearchGate users with
an interesting take on channels of impact that may more accurately reflect certain academic
dynamics and yet may also less accurately capture influence for fields with less
ResearchGate penetration. The first and most obvious challenge that must be addressed
for altmetrics to penetrate the broader realm of higher education is the development of more
sophisticated tools for aggregate-level altmetrics and comparative institutional analysis.
244 12 Database and Research Metrics

Consequently, unlike SSRN, ResearchGate offers users the clear and focused opportu-
nity to see subtle changes in their in-network influence and impact over time. Further, by
adapting features from non-academic networks such as an internal inbox and a “Requests”
alert system, ResearchGate can help academics start private, semiprivate, or public
conversations with peers about their research interests and projects. These conversations
can themselves become valuable qualitative pieces within a researcher’s portfolio and can
lead to the discovery of audiences in unexpected subject areas. Like many social networks,
ResearchGate suffers from the problem of limited data in that it cannot track information
about the identities of non-ResearchGate users who stumble across user profiles (some-
thing that naturally occurs via Google searching). Also, researchers outside the sciences
may find their fields less than accurately populated with research due to inevitable
imbalances in the adoption of ReearchGate across the disciplines.

Mendeley

Mendeley (http://mendeley.com) is a free peer network that combines the discoverability of

peer networks with the organizational content of a citation management software program.
Mendeley launched in 2008, initially funded by investors until its acquisition by Elsevier in
early 2013. By registering for Mendeley, users can search for articles, upload articles,
create article citations, browse articles by discipline, or follow group topics of interest and
other researchers’ updates in Mendeley. Once logged in, a Mendeley user’s homepage is
similar to that of a Facebook feed with individual items comprised of recent updates from
groups and researchers that the individual follows. By downloading Mendeley’s desktop
program, users can take advantage of the citation aspect of the network, which allows users
to store, organize, and cite articles of interest within a personally created citation library.
Still, from the perspective of altmetrics, the greatest value of using Mendeley is data that
the tool produces and collects—namely, information about Mendeley’s readership, which
is freely available and can be harvested by various altmetrics tools. According to the
Mendeley website, readership is defined as “the total number of Mendeley users who
have [a specific] reference in their Mendeley personal library.” Readership as a metric is
further categorized based on basic reader demographic information: readers’ disciplines,
academic statuses, and countries of affiliation. Despite the fact that readership data is only
technically available for individual articles through the Mendeley platform, many
altmetrics tools rework and aggregate this metric independently to provide readership
metrics at the author, departmental or lab, and institutional levels.
12 The Leiden Manifesto 245

The Leiden Manifesto

This document was published in Nature to lay down ten guiding principles intended to
guide best practices for bibliometric-based research assessment. These principles are
summarized below. Although they are well understood within the expert bibliometric
community, they need to be adopted by others seeking to implement or understand
bibliometric-based evaluation.

• Metrics can provide additional dimensions to the assessment process, but should never
be used in isolation from qualitative assessment (e.g., peer-review). Metrics-based
evaluation can supplement and provide additional dimensions to qualitative assessment,
but should never replace it.
• Metrics used to evaluate research performance should reflect the research objectives of
the institution, research groups, or individual researchers. Individual indicators often
provide a one-dimensional view of research impact while intended research goals of the
evaluated units or individuals may be multi-dimensional. For example, they may include
advances of science or improvements of social outcomes and may be aimed at differing
audiences from researcher, to industry, to policymakers. No single metric or evaluation
model can apply in all contexts.
• Measure locally relevant research using appropriate metrics, including those that build
on journal collections in local languages or that cover certain geographic locations. Big
international citation databases (used most frequently to derive data used for
constructing indicators) still mostly focus on English language, western journals.
• Metrics-based evaluation, to be trusted, should adhere to the standards of openness and
transparency in data collection and analysis. What data are collected? How is it
collected? How are citations captured? What are the exact methods and calculations
used to develop indicators? Is the process open to scrutiny by experts and by the
assessed?
• Those who are evaluated should be able to verify data and the analyses used in the
assessment process. Are all relevant outputs identified, captured, and analyzed?
• Just as all metrics are not suitable for assessing all aspects of scholarship neither can they
be applied equally across all disciplines. We know that disciplines vary in their
publication and citation practices, and these need to be taken into consideration when
selecting metrics to compare disciplines. For instance, a bibliometric profile of a
researcher studying causes of lung disease will be rather different from that of a
researcher studying the social effects of smoke cessation programs.
• Do not rely on a single quantitative indicator when evaluating individual researchers.
The h-index, currently the most popular author-level indicator, favors older researchers
with longer publication lists. Moreover, it does not adjust for disciplinary differences
and ignores the impact of highly cited papers. The signatories of the Leiden Manifesto
state that: “Reading and judging a researcher’s work is much more appropriate than
relying on one number.”
246 12 Database and Research Metrics

• Sets of indicators can provide a more reliable and multi-dimensional view than a single
indicator. The Manifesto authors give an example of a set of impact factors shown to
three decimal places, creating a false impression that journals can be reliably ranked
even if small differences in scores are observed. It is better to consider a range of
indicators to identify differences.
• Goodhart’s Law is evident in research evaluation; it states that, “any observed statistical
regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.”
Every evaluation system creates incentives (intended or unintended) and these, in turn,
drive behaviors. Use of a single indicator (like JIF) opens the evaluation system to such
undesirable behaviors like gaming or goal displacement. To mitigate against these
behaviors multiple indicators should be used. Furthermore, indicators should be
reviewed and updated in line with changing goals of assessment, and new metrics
should be considered as they become available.

How to Interpret Research Metrics

It’s tempting to reach for simple numbers and extrapolate meaning, but be careful about
reading too closely into metrics. The best strategy is to see metrics as generating questions,
rather than answers. The basket of metrics simply tells us “what.”

• What are the number of views of the work?

• What are the number of downloads from the journal?
• What are the number of citations?

To interpret our metrics effectively, think less about “what” and use our metrics as a
starting point to delve deeper into “who,” “how,” and “why”:

• Who is reading the journal?

• Where are they based, what is their role, how are they accessing it?
• Who are the key authors in our subject area?
• Where are they publishing now?
• How are users responding to our content?
• Are they citing it in journals, mentioning it in policy documents, talking about it on
Twitter?
• How is our subject area developing? What are the hot topics, emerging fields, and key
conversations?
• Why was a specific article successful?
• What made the media pick up on it, what prompted citations from other journals, who
was talking about it?
12 Altmetrics and Open Access 247

It’s easy to damage the overall picture of our research metrics by focusing too much on
one specific metric. If we wanted to boost our Impact Factor by publishing more highly
cited articles, we might be disregarding low-cited articles used extensively by our readers.
Therefore, if we chose to publish only highly cited content for a higher Impact Factor, we
could lose the value of our journal for a particular segment of our readership. Generally, the
content most used by practitioners, educators, or students (who don’t traditionally publish)
is not going to improve our Impact Factor, but will probably add value in other ways to our
community at large. It’s important to consider a range of research metrics when monitoring
our journal’s performance. It can be tempting to concentrate on one metric like Impact
Factor, which is so widely recognized as a hallmark of quality. But citations are not the
be-all and end-all.

Altmetrics and Open Access

The methods that researchers use to communicate with each other about their work has
rapidly evolved, thanks largely to online technologies such as peer networks, blogs,
repositories, and even media hosting sites. As a result, some people in higher education
have questioned whether print-based, peer-reviewed publications (with their ever-
increasing costs and access restrictions) are still integral to the advancement of scholarly
research. Is there a way to make more research freely available rather than force users to go
through a paywall? Such questions closely mirror the development of altmetrics and open
access, both demonstrating value in pursuing scholarship beyond traditional models of
publication. As we have seen, one of the primary ways research impact is measured is at the
scholarly journal level, which is often accessed only at a cost that must be paid by users or
academic libraries. If open access advocates attempt to dissolve the monopoly of these
subscription journals through online publication, how can we continue to judge the quality
of the resulting scholarly works? This is where discussions of both article-level metrics and
post-review practices come into play. For instance, while many open access journals do
still offer peer-review as part of their publication model, networks such as Faculty of 1000,
PubPeer, and Peerage of Science offer an alternative review service for those that do not,
based on after-the-fact user ratings. Some of these services also offer a kind of altmetrics by
providing users with an indication of internally judged article quality, similar to peer
review. Although these options are largely offered by independent sites that aren’t
integrated into altmetrics harvester tools, they will continue to impact scholarly
publications and research metrics as open access options are refined. Another similarity
between open access and altmetrics is the concern they both generate over the legitimacy of
their results. In the case of open access, the concern is over the possible proliferation of
open access scam journals—something that is an unfortunate reality and can give some
researchers pause when considering whether to publish in an unfamiliar open access
journal. The fear of illegitimate open access publications is not unlike the gaming concern
that has been raised by some critics against altmetrics adoption. However, just as
248 12 Database and Research Metrics

safeguards are now in place within the internal monitoring of altmetrics providers to catch
and eliminate attempts at gaming, a number tools have been developed to combat the
creation of sham open access journals, such as the Beall’s List, which identifies open access
publishers and publications that seem to exist primarily to extract publication costs from
authors rather than freely contribute to available scholarly knowledge. In a long run, open
access and altmetrics have excellent chances of continuing to thrive, based on their
reflection of the practical needs, desires, and interests of motivated researchers, librarians,
and other passionate populations. Keeping up to speed on developments in both areas can
give advocates in both spaces a much-needed boost. For this reason, we strongly recom-
mend that readers continue to watch open access and consider its place in their libraries.

Indian Citation Index

Indian Citation Index (ICI) database was developed with specific motives to promote
knowledge contents, published in Indian journals and bridge the gap between the content
sources and content users via World Wide Web. ICI database covers about 1000 Indian
scholarly journals, encompassing all disciplines of knowledge including the sciences,
social sciences, arts, and humanities. ICI like other indexes enables user to move back in
time to previously published papers, but uniquely one can also look forward in time to
determine who has subsequently cited an earlier piece of research. This feature makes this
database a specialized information product and highly useful for researchers, policymakers,
decision takers, editors, librarians, etc. The ICI database also produces other useful
by-products like Indian Science Citation Index (ISCI), Indian Social Science and
Humanities Citation Index (ISSHCI), Indian Journals Citation Reports (IJCR), Indian
Science and Technology Abstracts (ISTA), and Directory of Indian Journals (DOIJ).
Citation indexes provide authoritative, timely and prospective as well as retrospective
in-depth access to the literature. Citation indexes also provide various indicators to evaluate
the author impact in a subject. Through citation analysis, citation index provides journal
ranking by giving information about what articles, themes, and topics were being
published, cited, or ignored and also offers unique insight into a particular journal and
provide data on historical trends immediacy index, cited half-life of journals, etc. Citation
analysis helps to know the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Author Self-Citation (ASC) and
Journal Self-Citation (JSC). Citation index also helps to determine the latest areas of
research through bibliometric indicators. With citations used as the criterion for impor-
tance, utmost care should be taken as the authors may cite their own work, thus increasing
its apparent academic importance. Secondly, significant articles may appear in obscure
places (non-core journals) and be missed by the indexers.
Further Reading 249

Review Questions

1. What do you understand by database? Explain any three types of database.

2. Analyze bibliometrics milestones year by year.
3. What is impact factor? How will you calculate it? What are disadvantages of impact
factor?
4. Explain cited half-life, Eigen factor and article influence score.
5. What is Web of Science? How is it so influential than other tools?
6. How will you interpret research metrics?
7. Explain three categories of bibliometrics tools?
8. Explain the development of altmetrics year by year.
9. Why Indian citation index is different from the others?
10. Write short notes on the following:
(a) Immediacy Index
(b) H-Index H5-Index and H5-Median
(c) Fuzzy Metrics
(d) Scopus
(e) Web of Science
(f) Google Scholar
(g) ResearchGate
(h) Altmetrics
(i) Mendeley

Further Reading

Adriaanse LS, Rensleigh C (2013) Web of science, scopus and google scholar: a content comprehen-
siveness comparison. Electron Libr 31(6):727–744
Garfield E (2007) The evolution of the science citation index. Int Microbiol 10:65–69, http://garfield.
library.upenn.edu/papers/barcelona2007a.pdf
Nigam A, Nigam PK (2012) Citation index and impact factor. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol
78(4):511–516
ResearcherID (n.d.) ResearcherID. http://www.researcherid.com/. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
Roemer RC, Borchardt R (2015) Meaningful metrics: a 21st century librarian’s guide to
bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. The Association of College & Research Libraries,
Chicago
Shaik F (n.d.) Importance of indexing in research publications—a review article. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/311963944
Siau K (2004) Advanced topics in database research. Idea Group Publishing, London
Silberschatz A, Stonebraker M, Ullman J (n.d.) Database research: achievements and opportunities
into the 21st century. Report of an NSF workshop on the future of database systems research, May
26-27, 1995
250 12 Database and Research Metrics

Testa J (n.d.) The book selection process for the book citation index in web of science. http://wokinfo.
com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
The Book Citation Index (n.d.) Web of Science. http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplin
ary/bookcitationindex/. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
The Complete Citation Connection (n.d.) Web of Science. http://wokinfo.com/citationconnection/.
Accessed 6 Jan 2015
van Ruler B, Vercic AT, Vercic D (2008) Public relations metrics research and evaluation. Taylor &
Francis, New York
References

1. Johnson AG, Johnson PRV (2007) Making sense of medical ethics: a hands-on guide. Oxford
University Press, New York
2. Kimmel AJ (1988) Ethics and values in applied social research. SAGE Publications, New York
3. Novikov AM, Novikov DA (2013) Research methodology: from philosophy of science to
research design. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton
4. Rubenstein AH (2002) Integrity in scientific research. The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC
5. Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International
(P) Ltd, New Delhi
6. Higgins C (2011) The good life of teaching: an ethics of professional practice. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, West Sussex
7. Neville C (2010) The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism. Open University
Press McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire
8. Koepsell D (2017) Scientific integrity and research ethics: an approach from the ethos of science.
Springer International Publishing AG, Berlin
9. Bridges D (2017) Philosophy in educational research: epistemology, ethics, politics and quality.
Springer International Publishing AG, Berlin
10. Chawla D, Sondhi N (2015) Research methodology: concepts and cases. Vikas Publishing House
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
11. Macrina FL (2014) Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research.
American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington, DC
12. Salzano FM, Hurtado AM (2004) Lost paradises and the ethics of research and publication.
Oxford University Press, New York
13. Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, Massachusetts
14. Albanse JS (2010) Combating piracy: intellectual property theft and fraud. Transaction
Publications, London
15. Sieber JE (1982) The ethics of social research fieldwork, regulation, and publication. Springer-
Verlag, New York
16. D’Angelo J (2012) Ethics in science ethical misconduct in scientific research. CRC Press Taylor
& Francis Group, Boca Raton
17. Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists: between ethical conduct and
regulatory compliance. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 251
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4
252 References

18. Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T (2005) Ethics in qualitative research. SAGE
Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
19. Oliver P (2003) The student’s guide to research ethics. Open University Press McGraw-Hill
Education, Philadelphia
20. Smeyers P, Depaepe M (2018) Educational research: ethics, social justice, and funding dynamics.
Springer International Publishing AG, Berlin
21. Pruzan P (2016) Research methodology: the aims, practices and ethics of science. Springer
International Publishing Switzerland, Cham
22. Kumar R (2011) Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. SAGE Publications
India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
23. Pring R (2000) Philosophy of educational research. Continuum Press, New York
24. Burgess RG (2005) The ethics of educational research. The Falmer Press, New York
25. Brandenburg R, McDonough S (2019) Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher
education. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore
26. Elliott SL, Fischer BA, Grinnell F, Zigmond MJ (2015) Perspectives on research integrity.
American Society for Microbiology, Herndon
27. Loue S (2002) Textbook of research ethics: theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
New York
28. Jain S (2019) Research methodology in arts, science and humanities. Society Publishing Canada,
Burlington
29. Rose SL (2015) Avoiding being penalized: research misconduct. Office for the Protection of
Research Subjects, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
30. Roberts TS (2008) Student plagiarism in an online world: problems and solutions. Information
Science Reference, New York
31. Bairagi V, Munot MV (2019) Research methodology: a practical and scientific approach. CRC
Press Taylor & Francis Group, New York
32. Zhang Y(H) (2016) Against plagiarism: a guide for editors and authors. Springer International
Publishing, Cham
Index

A Comprehension, 47
Academic dishonesty, 72, 88 Confidentiality, 25, 46, 85, 110, 114, 132, 134, 137,
Accreditation actions, 75 145, 149
Administrative sanctions, 63 Conflict of interest, 42, 70, 82, 111, 114, 115, 117,
Adult learning, 65, 71, 76 120, 122, 125, 127
Advertising, 116 COPE’s, 110, 112
Alderson, P., 37 Copyright, 49, 149–151, 153, 154, 156, 162, 164,
Analytical research, 3 167, 172, 215, 220, 222
Appeal, 139, 207 Cornfield, 83
Applied research, 2 Correlational research, 3
ARESA, 123 CSE, 120, 132, 139, 212, 213
Authorship, 44, 45, 84, 96, 110, 113, 131–133, 137 Cultures and heritage, 137–138
Authorship issues, 96–97, 135
Autonomy, 47, 51, 61
Auto-plagiarism, 90 D
Auxiliary theorems, 12 Data analysis, 113
Data collection, 6
Dell, 63
B Deontology, 43
Basic research, 2 Dewey, J., 15
Begley, 83 Diederik Stapel, 82
Benchmarking, 74, 78 Dignity, 51
Beneficence, 47, 52 Duplicate publication, 96, 98–100, 132, 133, 135,
Biomedical publications, 109, 110 136, 140
Boastful language, 144 Duties of editors, 115
Bosman, 88

E
C EASE, 126
Cassell and Jacobs, 23 Ecological system, 147
Charles Babbage’s, 82 Editerra, 126
CIOMS, 122, 123 Editor’s decision, 111
Clinical trial, 138 Educational opportunities, 70
Collusion, 90, 209 Elliott, C., 16
Commodification, 34 Elliott, J., 14
Communalism, 43, 50 Empirical knowledge, 12
Competing interests, 102, 131, 133, 135 EMWA, 135

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 253
S. K. Yadav, Research and Publication Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4
254 Index

Epistemology, 11, 14, 30 International copyright law, 98, 153

Ethical, 23–29, 31, 38, 72, 82, 83, 96, 98, 110, 112, Interpersonal interactions, 68
131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 141, 160, 219, 222 Investigating misconduct, 116
Ethical approval, 112
Ethical behavior, 72, 106
Ethical codes, 19 J
Ethical violations, 41 Jealousy, 132
Ethics committee, 53, 54, 56
Ethos, 25, 55
Experimental design, 61, 139 K
Experimental reporting, 138 Kant, I., 43
Kent, 61
Knowledge falsification, 104
F
Fabrication, 82, 84, 110, 113
Falsification, 81, 110 L
Federal mandates, 63 Leading publisher, 144
Federal research agencies, 65 Less serious misconduct, 117
Feminist research, 37, 38 Literature survey, 5
FERCAP, 123
Forsyth, 28
Fraud, 104, 105 M
Fraudulent conclusions, 131 MacLure, 15
Fraudulent data, 133 Malfeasance, 61
Manuscripts, 89, 91, 92, 99–101, 109–111, 128,
140–143
G Media relations, 115
Generalizable knowledge, 32, 124 Metatheory, 12
Genuine research, 81 Modernization, 36, 156
Ghost Authors, 85, 97 MOOSE, 134
Gift Authors, 97 Moral education, 17
Globalization, 147 Moral judgments, 10
Goal-implementation, 10 Moral justification, 81
Guest Authors, 97 Multi-center trials, 97
Guiding principles, 70, 167, 245
Gyorgyi, A.S., 1
N
Non-maleficence, 52
H Nuremberg code, 48
Human behavior, 3, 10
Human rights, 145, 160–162, 168
Hypothesis testing, 6 O
Open-systems model, 71, 72
Opinion leaders, 85
I
IAB, 121, 123
ICMJE, 125, 132, 134, 135 P
IFPMA, 138 Paraphrasing, 90
Improperly processed data, 131, 133 Paternalism, 51
Individualization, 36 Patronage, 35
Institutional leaders, 69 Paul Benacerraf, 60
Intellectual honesty, 27, 59, 60, 96, 112 Peer review, 45, 67, 78, 119, 121, 123
Interdisciplinary research, 17, 21 Peer reviewers, 46, 65, 99, 127, 134, 139, 140, 177
Index 255

Performance assessment, 32, 68 Research ethics committees, 125

Performance-based model, 74 Research integrity, 226
Philosophy of research, 14, 21 Research leaders, 69
Plagiarism, 8, 90–92, 110, 115, 140, 141, 207–211, Research misconduct, 45, 69, 70, 82–84, 91, 105,
218, 220–222, 225, 226 132, 140
Plagiarism issue, 136 Research proposal, 5
Pluralism, 31 Research protocols, 68, 112
Potential promotion, 102 Research report writing, 7
Pragmatic, 18 Reviewer’s comment, 138
Pragmatic theory, 18 Robert Merton, 41
Predatory publisher, 143
Preference falsification, 104
Principal investigator, 86, 113 S
Private knowledge, 104 Salami slicing, 95
Professional standards, 26, 59, 75 Scientific evidence, 140
Proprietorship, 34 Scientific integrity, 109
Psychical self-regulation, 10 Scientific interactions, 67
Public accountability, 124 Scientific misconduct, 41, 46, 63, 81, 82, 85, 86,
Publication ethics, 93, 109, 112, 116, 124, 131, 104, 110
132, 140, 141, 219 Selection of domain, 4
Public knowledge, 104 Self-plagiarism, 44, 106
PubPeer, 84, 91, 247 Self-regulation, 10, 61, 119
Pursuit of truth, 22 Self-serving stake, 102
Serious misconduct, 116, 117
Singapore Statement, 83, 133, 218
Q Skepticism, 50
Qualitative research, 3, 30 Socialization, 71
Quantitative research, 3 Social justice, 30
Software applications, 141
Stakeholders, 44, 50, 54, 123, 166, 183–185, 199
R
Redundancy, 95, 98–100
Redundant publication, 96, 99, 114, 117 V
Regulatory approach, 73 Verbatim, 90
Repetitive publications, 95 Voluntariness, 47
Replication, 90, 209
Republication, 90, 220
Research enterprise, 69 W
Research environment, 35, 62, 64–66, 71–73, 75, 180 Woody, C., 1