|
Welcome to the November issue of COPE Digest.
As we enter the final months of this daunting year that is 2020, I would like to take a moment to look back at our Predatory Publishing discussion document, a year after its publication, to consider whether developments in attitudes or approaches have changed in this arena.
So, some questions for you – has the phenomenon of predatory publishing changed for you? For better or worse? Do you feel it is a problem that is harmful to your field? Is it impeding any work on your own journals? Are you involved in any new initiatives you’d like us to be aware of? Share your experience on our website.
We have seen an adjustment in terminology, in support of raising awareness around diversity, to pay more sensitive consideration to the use of words which have implications for inclusivity, accessibility, and negative connotations. Cabells redefined their terminology, and now use "journalytics" and "predatory reports" instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist; while Github adopted "allow list" and "deny/exclude list”.
More work has been undertaken to give predatory publishing a functional working definition. A systematic review was published in BMC Medicine in May, authored by Samantha Cukier and colleagues from the Centre for Journalology, Ottawa, with the aim of leading to “the creation of one evidence based tool serving authors from all disciplines.”
Earlier this year, the TOP Factor was launched to assess eight measures of transparency and openness of journals, as a means of establishing integrity and rigour with which journals apply standards and policy to their processes. On similar lines, the Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies (PREP) initiative was launched to record and promote the editorial policies of journals. It offers guidance for publishers and editors, and a reference database for interested parties wishing to look up journals.
|
|
The summer also saw a team at Texas Tech University launch the first phase of the STEM Training in Ethics of Publication Practices (STEPP) programme...
READ MORE >
COPE Chair Deborah Poff
|
|
|
How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns
In this case, a reader contacted a journal, making several criticisms about a recently published meta-analysis. However, the editorial team and statistical editor concluded that the overall meta-analysis results were unaffected. Of the criticisms made, one pointed to an error in the article, but the others seemed more subjective. When invited to write a Letter to the Editor, the reader declined and recommended a correction or retraction. In response, the journal prepared an Editorial Comment that included issues raised by the reader, who offered feedback and agreed to be acknowledged. After being shown the comment, the authors of the meta-analysis submitted a formal response and a re-analysis as the basis for a correction.
As advised by the journal, the reader also directly contacted the authors, but then raised new issues and demanded a second correction. The reader subsequently asked the journal to involve its publisher’s ethics committee and told the authors that their university, colleagues, and funder would be informed of the purported errors. The editor was concerned that the reader would continue complaining until the journal agreed to a retraction.
Questions for the Forum:
- What is a journal’s responsibility to minimise potential reputational damage to authors, when a reader disagrees on whether an error has been made versus a difference in opinion?
- How can a journal respond to (unreasonable) requests from readers for a retraction if the editorial team considers retraction to be unwarranted?
In this case discussion Trevor Lane, COPE Council Member, shares the advice given by fellow COPE members and adds to the discussion with further analysis of this and similar issues.
READ MORE >
|
|
Latest publication ethics news
This month the news includes articles on diversity, retractions, open access, and more.
- Results of a survey about editing peer review reports among editors of high-impact journals across ecology, economics, medicine, physics, and psychology.
- The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has changed their open access policy, effective January 1 2021, to align with Plan S principles.
- The Embassy of Good Science has launched a new platform where researchers can collaborate to build a central resource for good scientific practices.
READ MORE >
|
|
Predatory publishing discussion
This COPE guidance gives an overview of the issue with recommendations and resources. One year on we would like to hear from you. Have things changed in your discipline? Are there new initiatives?
ADD YOUR COMMENTS >
|
|
|
COPE Forum
Tuesday 15 December, 2.00pm-3.30pm (GMT)
(COPE members only)
Please note the change of date for the Forum.
The Forum is now on Tuesday 15 December at the earlier time of 2pm (GMT).
COPE Members: if you have a publication ethics issue you're currently dealing with and need advice from other COPE members, you can submit your case for discussion and advice at our next COPE Forum.
The Forum will follow the usual format where we have a discussion topic, followed by cases presented for discussion and advice from members participating in the Forum.
The discussion topic at the December Forum will be 'Predatory publishing: next steps and where do we go from here?'.
|
|
|
|
|
Workshop: peer review
Thursday 19 November, 9am (GMT)
(COPE members only)
Following the popularity of our September peer review workshop, COPE is repeating the workshop at the earlier time of 9am (GMT) which we hope will suit members in different time zones.
The workshop is now full. Look out for more workshops in 2021.
MORE INFORMATION >
|
|
|
Visit our events page to read more about upcoming events which include discussions on publication ethics issues.
- Matt Hodgkinson, COPE Council Member, will be exploring the ethics of citations as an invited speaker at the ISMTE European virtual event on Friday 20 November
- Short course on publication ethics with Council of Science Editors, 29 January 2021
EVENTS >
|
|
COPE Members
Audit your journals
The COPE Journal Audit corresponds to COPE's Core Practices and can be used by members to identify any areas that need to be revised in your journals.
COPE AUDIT >
Membership handbook
The new membership handbook is a guide, for new and existing members of COPE, to the benefits of being a COPE member, how to make the most of membership, and how to uphold the highest ethical standards in research publishing.
READ HANDBOOK >
|
|
COPE Digest Editor:
Nancy C Chescheir, MD, Editor-in-Chief, Obstetrics and Gynecology
|
|
|
|
