Publishing research results

Publishing results is a fundamental part of scientific work. Through publication, results are communicated to the rest of the scientific community and the public. This enables others with knowledge in the area to confirm the results or point out possible mistakes/inaccuracies. Moreover, such openness means that a discussion with respect to values can be conducted concerning the methods and consequences of science. Moreover, in the Universal declaration on human rights, the United Nations states that everyone "has the right freely to share in scientific advancement and its benefits", something which the publishing of research contributes to.

Open access

The CUDOS norms have often served as a foundation for publication ethics, asserting that there is no ownership of knowledge. This should not be interpreted as a denial of the fact that copyrighting is applicable to scientific publications, but instead as an expression of an ideal signifying that knowledge should be shared with all of mankind. A burning question is whether this openness can be preserved in a climate characterized by increasingly severe economic competition. Should companies that sponsor research be able to hinder or delay publication of results? Should scientists be able to distribute their results freely or should the market economy's rules apply? In its policy briefing nr 21, "Open Access", the European Science Foundation discusses the latter question. The Foundation also has a policy regarding scientific communication. A recent initiative is the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Many organizations and universities all over Europe have signed it. Now the US Congress (Section 801 of Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007) and the European Research Council (ERC) have announced guidelines with mandatory open access policies that direct researchers to deposit their manuscripts with PubMed Central or other specified online medical databases that are freely available to the public. The ERC Guideline states that "all peer-reviewed publications from ERC-funded research projects" should be deposited into "an appropriate repository where available . . . and subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication." Also in the EU, parts of the FP7 has an Open Access policy. The American Guidelines apply to all clinical trials in the U.S.

Further, The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers has issued statements that supports open access. See also the Washington D.C. Principles For Free Access to Science, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and The PRISM Principles. Important is also the OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding. For questions concerning ownership, copyright and patent, click here.

Pre- and postpublication sharing of data

In some areas of science, notably in "community resource projects", there is a strive for greater sharing of data through prepublication. This was summarized in the so-called Bermuda Principles and in the conclusions of the Toronto International Data Release Workshop. A similar idea is found in the argument for deposition of data in postpublication databases. An example is the "International Mouse Strain Resource". There are many policies on this from national authorities such as the American NAS and NIH, and the Brittish MRC. See here also the "Sharing Data Report" from the Wellcome Trust.

Recognized guidelines

Internationally, there are two prominent publication guidelines. In its White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, the Council of Science Editors (CSE) discusses varies questions of publication ethics. The Vancouver rules for authorship (formal name: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE) serve as the foremost international standards of publication ethics. ICMJE nowadays states that a trial will be considered for publication only if it has been registered before the enrollment of the first patient.

In 1997, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in the UK, and its Guidelines on good publication practice have been widely and internationally circulated. The publishers have also started to take action. First out (?) were Blackwell, see their Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective. Another exemple is Nature's Editorial policies. Elsevier has a Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK). The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers has issued Guidelines for quotation & other academic uses of excerpts.

Publications in medicine

As concerns medicine, it can be added that the Declaration of Helsinki states that results from research not investigated by an ethics committee should not be accepted for publication. All trials involving patients should be published in registries or databases (see Joint Position on the Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information via Clinical Trial Registries and Databases). The CONSORT group has issued a Statement on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials together with various extensions for different kinds of studies. A similar initiative is the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD). Epidemiologists are expected to adhere to the STROBE Statement. STREGA is an extension of the STROBE Statement. The SQUIRE standard can be found in Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care. Another standard - PRISMA - has been developed to guide the writing of metaanalyses and systematic reviews. How to report conflicts of interests has been described by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in the guideline Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests in ICMJE Journals. European Medical Writers Association have developed Guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications and Ghostwriting Guidelines. For editors in the medical field, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) has published a number of Policy Statements. There are also a Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies and Guidelines for a Code of Ethics for Dental Publications.

Authorship

A much discussed question regards criteria for authorship. There has been a consensus view saying that each person listed as an author shall take public responsibility for the publication's content. This means that one should be able to explain why and how the observations were made, and how the conclusions follow from the data. The Vancouver rules state that

authorship credit should be based on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published.

These criteria have been challenged, however (see CSE's Authorship Task Force). For group authorship, CSE has made a Recommendations for Group-Author Articles in Scientific Journals and Bibliometric Databases. Useful is COPE's How to handle authorship disputes:a guide for new researchers.

Other issues

The Office of Research Integrity (USA) has suggested guidelines for how journal editors should handle alleged cheating in its Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Guidelines on good refereeing practice are included in Science Editors' Handbook (by European Association of Science Editors). See also COPE's Guidelines for retracting articles.

The Society for Neuroscience also has its own Guidelines on Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. Also, there are Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research and Bioethics Publishing Guidelines.

Last updated: 2010-01-04