Research Institute

Research Institute

Teamwork Between Journals and Research Institutions on Research Reliability Cases

Journals and institutions both plays vital role in research and printing of misbehavior. Institutes are accountable for researchers’ misconduct and create suitable atmosphere to upgrade research. Similarly Journals are accountable for editors’ behavior and for protecting research records. Journals are also supposed to make sure to continue trustworthiness of their publication. Hence it is mandatory for institutes as well as journals to take care of reliability by effective communication and contribution. This goal can be achieved by taking following steps.

  • Delegate responsibility of reliability to special research executive and display his contact details clearly visible
  • The journals should be communicated all confirmed misconduct which can harm trustworthiness or goodwill, without any delay
  • All the requests received from journals, pertaining to any disputes w.r.t. authorship, misguiding reports, honest errors, competing interest should be honored on priority to avoid adverse effect on integrity.
  • Take suitable steps against research misconduct allegations/objectionable publication pointed out by journals.
  • Make policy which motivates ideal research conduct and process instead of enquiring doubtful research misconduct.
Expectations from a Journal:
  • Publicize name, address, contact phone/mobile no., email id, fax no. etc. of chief editor to enable people to contact him to get answers w.r.t. reliability of research and publication
  • Share all the information w.r.t. their researchers’ doubtful misconduct with documentary evidence.
  • Extend utmost cooperation to investigators by answering all the questions to institutions regarding misconduct charges.
  • Whenever verdict received from investigators with concrete evidence regarding misconducts, they should be ready to issue retractions or corrigendum as per OARS illustrations.
  • Have proper guidelines for dealing with investigating authorities engaged in research misconduct.
Preamble
  • Academic journals and research universities are indispensable stroke in sustaining reliability of research and publication by performing vital role, in mutual interest. They are accountable for the behavior of their editors & researchers and for motivating sound research atmosphere which nurtures research integrity. They are also supposed to protect research record and to make sure the integrity is sustained in all their output.
  • In order to maintain reliability of research and publication, institutions and journals should work together with each other. They should make suitable policy and encourage ideal understanding among editors, authors, researchers, & reviewers. Journals should be very cautious in detecting plagiarism/misconduct before the publication. With a view to protect readers from misguidance, institutions are supposed to scrutinize probable misconduct; similarly journals should rectify honest error or retract objectionable/untrustworthy article/paper.
  • A forum comprised of all journal members is made available by OARS with a view to share the problematic issues among themselves which alerts them regarding the anticipated problems regarding probable misconduct likely to be faced in working with institutions. It is also observed by going through literature and consulting with institutions that sometimes editors does not react favorably while informing misconduct conclusions.
  • With a view to achieve fruitful result [w.r.t. publication moral and research reliability] from the joint venture of journal editors and research institutions, OARS has designed following strategies after consulting experts in the relevant areas and institutions.
Scope
  • This article emphases mainly on scrutiny of probable misconduct without underestimating the importance of eradication, education etc. it is preferable for journal and institutional to include all features in their policies. Journal policies should not restrict their reactions confined to misconduct only but it should also give equal importance to genuine errors.
  • In the same way, it is observed that fund contributors also supposed to take responsibility of nurturing research reliability and they are entitled to get ins and outs [i.e. all information] regarding misconduct pertaining to research project for which they have contributed their money. Although OARS guideline is helpful in clarifying the roles of journals and institutions, but fund contributors can design their own guidelines, to sustain reliability of the research and to frame ideal clauses for maintaining desired research conduct with the help of journals and institutions.
Contextual Norms
  • As per OARS guidelines, whenever publication misconduct is found to be doubtful, editors are required to take up the matter first with concerned authors to get satisfactory reply. If editors are not convinced with the reply, then they should refer the case to concerned employers or institution with a request to scrutinize.
  • Hence OARS suggests that all the enquiries relating to probable misconduct should be entrusted to researcher’s institution instead of giving to editors. Editor is supposed to rectify or retract the untrustworthy articles before publication. The institution or employer is supposed to ensure that repetitions of misconduct never take place and eradicated once for all. In case, articles are already proved to be plagiarized or manipulated, editors should coordinate with the institutions for rectifying the published record by way of corrigendum/erratum.
  • Whenever clashes take place among researchers regarding authorship, journals required to join hands with [or refer the matter to] concerned institution because journals do not have right to scrutinize or conclude quarrels/clashes.
  • The OARS guidelines depend upon the criteria that institutions are responsible for the researchers’ faults. They are also supposed to scrutinize and take corrective actions against probable misconduct. The guidelines also specify that journals are accountable for their publications.
  • Although these guidelines motivates transparent communication between journals and institutions to conclude probable and confirmed misconduct, but it is also advisable to maintain secrecy with regard to
  • (A) Safeguarding identity of the person who has disclosed the misconduct,
  • (B) Comments/conclusions of peer reviewers
  • (C) Permitted deviations/deliberations/understandings
Description of Misconduct

Description of research misconduct varies from organization to organization and the same is applied based on requirements. Sometimes institutes rigidly follows the misconduct definition so minutely which may be impracticable and may not certify an author is guilty which leads to dispute with journals while considering retraction or corrigendum with a view to protect/aware readers from redundant publication.

  • This is guideline reflects to only doubtful situations and does not focus on effective intensity of misconduct which may adversely affect the trustworthiness of research analysis
  • Proposals to strengthen relation between journals and research institutions.
1. Single Window Information Centre (SWIC)
  • In order to have effective communication, research institution can delegate assignment of ensuring and maintaining reliability and to tackle misconduct disputes to a responsible, honest, impartial person who can work without prejudice and his contact details including name, address, contact phone/mobile no., email id, fax no. etc. should be made available in relevant website to enable people to contact him whenever required. If such person is not available within the institute, then they should recruit suitable person from external sources.
  • Similarly journals should also have a counterpart of above who can serve as “Chief Editor” and display his name, address, contact phone/mobile no., email id, fax no. etc. to enable people to contact him to get answers w.r.t. reliability of research and publication. In case, the disputes are not resolved within the journal’s periphery, then external mediator, who can act as an impartial intermediary between the journal editors and author/institutes.
2. Sharing of misconduct information
  • Whenever misconduct of researcher is detected by an institution, they should immediately contact concerned journal and share the facts to eradicate/minimize the effect of plagiarism/manipulation. If the conclusion of misconduct is released by external agency, then all the comments of verdict should also be share with journals. They should prepare themselves with suitable replies to all probable questions to justify retraction of concern.
  • Institutes are expected to share all the information to journal editor and give replies to all their queries relating to authorship misrepresentation, superfluous publication, repeat submission, failure to disclose competing interests, or misguiding reporting. Institutions should have such a system where researchers gladly share their honest errors to safeguard trustworthiness.

Editors are also supposed to support wholeheartedly the scrutiny process and convince institutes with satisfactory replies to all questions.

3. Interaction between journals and institutions should include
  • Receipt of all incoming mails is to be confirmed and suitable reply specially w.r.t. research misconduct accusations.
  • Sharing of all information to editors’ w.r.t. under process misconduct enquiries, their outcomes as well as approximate time required to conclude the matter with current status for enabling editors to take suitable/corrective actions.
  • The final conclusion of misconduct enquiry should be communicated to editors on priority to enable them to arrange for timely retraction or issue corrigendum.

 Make sure all the information regarding misconduct enquiry are crystal clear, perfect and comprehensive

It should be joint endeavor of both institutions as well as editors to maintain utmost secrecy about the in process misconduct enquiries. Although editors can release Expression of Concern to readers about severe charges may be endanger trustworthiness of a publication.

Responsibility / Duties of a Journal
  • Receipt of all incoming mails from institutions are to be acknowledged and send suitable reply specially w.r.t. research misconduct accusations
  • Share information regarding confirmed or doubtful plagiarism, fabrication of text to institutions with documentary proof.
  • Scrutinize the charges of researchers’ misconduct who may be working as peer reviewers for journal by following OARS illustrations.
  • Strictly adhere to OARS illustration while retracting research