Research and publication ethics

Section edited by Stephanie Harriman and Maria Kowalczuk.

This Section considers manuscripts on all aspects of research and publication ethics, including, but not limited to, the ethics of research designs, ethical approval, consent, authorship and contributorship, competing interests and all forms of research and publication misconduct on the part of authors, reviewers and editors. The Section also welcomes manuscripts focused on the effects of academic reward systems on publication behaviour, journal funding and income sources, and relations between editors and publishers and editorial freedom.

  1. Methodology

    Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles

    Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely re...

    Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte and Jason M. Schmidt

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:18

    Published on: 3 November 2017

  2. Commentary

    Improving the process of research ethics review

    Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research ...

    Stacey A. Page and Jeffrey Nyeboer

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:14

    Published on: 18 August 2017

  3. Research

    Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

    The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and t...

    Anthony Bozzo, Kamal Bali, Nathan Evaniew and Michelle Ghert

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:5

    Published on: 12 May 2017

  4. Research

    Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity

    Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more importa...

    Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson and Gerben ter Riet

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:17

    Published on: 21 November 2016

  5. Research

    Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal

    Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ens...

    Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin and James P. Evans

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:13

    Published on: 10 October 2016

  6. Review

    Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency

    Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing ...

    Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl and Florence T. Bourgeois

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:1

    Published on: 3 May 2016

  7. Research

    Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

    In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in th...

    Paul E. van der Vet and Harm Nijveen

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:3

    Published on: 3 May 2016