1

Selecting

Peer Reviewed Journals

and

Research and Publishing

ETHICS

Wayan Darmawan IPB

2

The road to publication

Selecting the proper Journal

Research and Publishing Ethics

OUT LINE

3

The Road to Publication 1. Manage

submissions

2. Manage

Peer Review

PUBLISHER

3. Edit &

prepare 4. Production

5. Publish &

Disseminate

DOING

RESEARCH

WRITING

ARTICLE

4

Questions to answer before you write

Think about WHY you want to publish your work.

Is it new and interesting?

Is it a current hot topic?

Have you provided solutions to some difficult problems?

Are you ready to publish at this point?

If all answers are yes

then start preparations for your manuscript

5

What type of manuscript?

Full articles / Original articles:

the most important papers, significant completed pieces of research.

Letters / Rapid Communications/ Short communications: quick and early communication of significant and original advances. Much shorter than full articles (check limitations).

Review papers / perspectives: summarize recent developments on a specific topic. Highlight important previously reported points.

Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?

Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type.

6

1. Select the proper journal for submission

Search a Journal by Journal Finder.

Ask yourself the following questions:

Is the journal peer-reviewed?

Is the journal relevant?

Is the journal a prestigious journal?

Is the journal discoverable?

Is the journal open access?

7

1.1 Journal Finders

Scholarly Peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly

work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the

same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal,

conference proceedings or as a book.

Some Journal Finders :

Elsevier Journal finder

Manuscript matcher

Springer Nature Suggester

8

Elsevier Journal finder (Scopus)

9

Manuscript matcher (Thomson Reuters)

10

Springer Nature Suggester (Scopus)

Radial Variation in Selected Wood Properties of

Indonesian Merkusii Pine

ABSTRACT

Life Sciences

11

12

Open Ulrich's.

1. Open Ulrich's web

2. Type the JOURNAL TITLE into the search box, and click the green search button.

3. In the search results, look for a referee jersey icon to indicate that a journal is refereed,

which is a synonym for peer-reviewed.

4. Or you can click on a journal to see the full record.

Ulrichsweb Global Serial Directory

(300,000 journal, 900 subject)

1.2 Is the journal peer-reviewed?

13

1.3 Is the journal relevant?

https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/forestry/journal/13196

Aims and Scope

The Journal aims to cover

research on all aspects of Wood

Science and allied fields relating

to resource utilization of wood.

In essence it relates to all

aspects of utilization including

processing, sales and marketing

of wood, its products and other

lignocellulosic materials both

from forestry and agricultural

origin.

14

1.4 Is the Journal a prestigious journal?

Check Journal Impact

The impact factor (IF) is used to measure the importance or rank of a

journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited. Calculation of 2017 IF of a journal:

A = the number of times articles published in 2015 and 2016 were cited by indexed journals

during 2017 (example : 500 times)

B = the total number of "citable items" published in 2015 and 2016.

(2015 = 120 articles, 2016 = 120 articles)

2017 impact factor = A/B = 500/240 = 2.08

1. Impact Factor (IF) Web of Science database

15

2. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) SCOPUS data based

https://www.scimagojr.com/

Journal of Indian Academy of Wood Science

16

h index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional.

The advantage of the h-index is that it combines productivity (i.e., number of

papers produced) and impact (number of citations) in a single number.

Quartile Q3

H index 5

17

The Importance of the Rank in DIKTI

1. Jurnal International Bereputasi : Scopus indexed SJR with Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 Web of Science with an IF Special Term/Requirement for Prof

submission 2. Jurnal Internasional Scopus indexed but without SJR Web of Science without IF

18

1.5 Is the Journal discoverable?

A journal is more likely to be discovered if it is indexed by a major journal

database providing easy access to content to researchers.

To make our article more discoverable: 1. Provide keywords when submit article the Journal

2. Register to Google Scholar and or Scopus

3. Use personal webpage

4. Use your ORCiD identifier

19

1.6 Is the Journal open access?

Good starting place to search for open access journal

1. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

https://doaj.org/

2. The Directory of Open Access Scholarly (ROAD)

http://road.issn.org/

3. Open database of the Journal

Search the content

20

https://doaj.org/

21

OPEN ACCESS

22

Support Open Access

23

Support Open Access

24

Decide on one journal. DO NOT submit to multiple journals.

Ethics in Science and Publication

25

ETHICS

in Research and

Publishing

26

Research misconduct vs publishing misconduct

are they the same thing?

• There is much focus on publication fraud and whether the publication system is “broken”

• BUT most research misconduct begins before

the paper, and is only caught when it is published, which

puts more attention on publication misconduct

2. Research and Publishing Ethics

27

2.1 Reports on Article Retraction

News Press

28

“There are many theories for why retractions and fraud have

increased. A benign view suggests that because journals are now

published online and more accessible to a wider audience, it’s easier

for experts to spot erroneous or fraudulent papers. A darker view

suggests that publish-or-perish pressures in the race to be first with

a finding and to place it in a prestigious journal has driven scientists

to make sloppy mistakes or even falsify data. The solutions are not

obvious, but clearly greater vigilance by reviewers and editors is

needed.”

“A surprising upsurge in the number of

scientific papers that have had to be retracted

because they were wrong or even fraudulent

has journal editors and ethicists wringing their

hands. The retracted papers are a small

fraction of the vast flood of research published

each year, but they offer a revealing glimpse of

the pressures driving many scientists to

improper conduct.”

29

1. It seems that every year, an old record falls. This year

(2017) saw the shattering of the record for the most

retractions issued by one journal in a single day, when

Springer retracted 107 papers from Tumor Biology after discovering all had been tainted by fake peer reviews.

2. 2017 was a rough year for Brian Wansink, a food

scientist at Cornell University. After researchers raised

questions about his work following a blog post he

published at the end of 2016, the notices began piling

up. He ended the year with five retractions (including

one paper that was retracted twice, after the revised

version was also retracted), and 13 corrections. Although

Cornell initially determined his research was tainted by

mistakes, not misconduct, the institution recently told

BuzzFeed it was re-investigating.

3. Second time wasn’t the charm for a study linking vaccines

to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. After the

paper was quickly retracted from a Frontiers journal in 2016,

it was republished in the Journal of Translational Science in May, 2017—then retracted again only days later. (Strangely, a

version of the paper reappeared online; we asked the journal

for an explanation but never heard back.)

4. May was a bad month for Rony Seger. The molecular

biologist at The Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel lost

nine papers on a single day, all of them in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The reason: image manipulation. Seger,

who has 11 retractions in all, is under investigation by his

institution, which also barred him from mentoring graduate

students.

From Journals 2017

30

Elsevier retracting 26 papers accepted because of fake reviews

December 21, 2017

Elsevier has retracted 13 papers—and says it will retract

13 more—after discovering they were accepted because

of fake reviews. A spokesperson for Elsevier told us that the journals are in the

process of retracting all 26 papers affected by the “peer-

review manipulation” and “unexplained authorship

irregularities.” Most share one corresponding author, a

physical science researcher based in Iran.

31

Ricahrd Van Noorden,

Nature (2011)

Carl Zimmer, NYTimes

(2012)

Progress in Retractions

32

Some studies on misconduct

RETRACTIONS ARE ON THE RISE

Fang, Steen, Casadevall (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications :

10x increase in retractions due to fraud since 1975 Reasons for retraction: error (21.3%), misconduct (67.4%) including,

fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%).

Van Noorden (2011) Nature The trouble with retractions in last 10 Web of Science tracks number of retractions to increase

10x Journal of Cell Biology--routine screening of accepted papers for

figure manipulation, since 2004. 25% of accepted manuscripts have at least one figure manipulation. 1% of accepted papers have image manipulation that impacts

conclusions

33

Is this problem?

• Number of retracted papers are still small percent of all science

published (0.02%)

• More scientists, more papers? But growth in retractions outpacing

growth in # papers

• Digital/electronic makes easier to detect some types of fraud/plagiarism

various software systems for detecting image manipulation, plagiarism

34

2.2 Research Misconduct

A common definition by: US-Public Health Service, Office of Research Integrity) and accepted by many international agencies/institutions: Research misconduct includes, fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. (a) FABRICATION is making up data or results and recording or

reporting them (b) FALSIFICATION is manipulating research materials, equipment or

processes, or changing or omitting data or results that the research is not accurately presented in the research record

(c) PLAGIARISM is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit

(d) Duplication (e) Multiplication (f) Research misconduct DOES NOT include honest error or

differences of opinion or necessarily

35

An easy to remember scientific moral code:

do not lie (fabrication),

cheat (falsification) or steal (plagiarism)

36

Contributing factors

Is misconduct an individual problem or does the research

environment contribute?

Some factors could contribute:

lack of appropriate training and mentorship about good scientific practice

high pressure and high profile publications

lack of institutional ethics

large collaborations

37

Common author misconduct situations

• Figure manipulation or falsification

• Data falsification

• Plagiarism (copying someone’s words, ideas, procedures without attribution)

• Self -Plagiarism (Repeating ideas, text, tables or figures from own published work without citing the source )

• Duplicate/redundant publication (overlap with previous publications)

• Multisubmission

• Conflicts of interest (financial, professional, personal)

• Authorship conflict (missed authors)

38

Plagiarism

39

The above example would be detected immediately by the present QC.

Cross-Check provides a summary % of copied text and, for any copied passage of more than

a few words, a link to the source document.

As a general rule do not copy or paraphrase more than 250 words from any source. Do

not re-use published figures.

Exceptions:

Location maps for field work that gives rise to several papers;

Methodologies with identical instrumental set up in various studies;

Introductory passages in related papers from a single study.

Reasonable re-use as above is permissible, but it is always advisable to refer to the first of

the publications.

40

Prevent misconduct? Institutions level

Education (Institutions should establish clear guidelines for responsible conduct in research, not only for students but all scientists in the institution).

Active mentoring (Senior investigators and mentors should not only talk to their trainees about the importance of good scientific practice)

Create a zero tolerance environment (Clear and stringent penalties for violations of guidelines)

Create visible oversight committees at institutions for fair investigation (Findings of committees should be made public when possible)

Better mechanisms for linking/updating papers (retracted papers don’t continue to be referenced and cited)

Carefully consider reward systems (may contribute to poor practices or focus on short term gains)

41

Editors/journals have an ethical obligation to respond to and address ethical allegations

Most journals have author and reviewer guidelines for appropriate ethical conduct. (Statements of copy right transfer)

Routine screening:

Routine figure screening for image manipulation

CrossRef/CrossCheck: systems for detecting plagiarism

Random screening of “certain types of papers”

Science, The Lancet: policies for heavier screening of papers in competitive fields, “hot topics,” “extraordinary claims”

Contribute to education and development of community standards: editorials, sponsorship of workshops to discuss issues related to scientific ethics.

Prevent misconduct? Editorials level

42

If there is evidence of misconduct/fraud: • Prior to publication (during review): manuscript can be

withdrawn from review

• Post-publication : Retraction, Errata/Correction.

• When to : Retract vs Correct Fraud vs Honest mistake.

• Author may be banned from submitting to the journal or other sanctions

43