Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.

<h4>Background</h4>It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of miscond...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Xavier Bosch, Cristina Hernández, Juan M Pericas, Pamela Doti, Ana Marušić
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/31eab59e7f4d4a6baffa663cc5685c0d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:31eab59e7f4d4a6baffa663cc5685c0d
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:31eab59e7f4d4a6baffa663cc5685c0d2021-11-18T08:04:30ZMisconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0051928https://doaj.org/article/31eab59e7f4d4a6baffa663cc5685c0d2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23284820/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.<h4>Results</h4>Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.Xavier BoschCristina HernándezJuan M PericasPamela DotiAna MarušićPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 12, p e51928 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Xavier Bosch Cristina Hernández Juan M Pericas Pamela Doti Ana Marušić Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
description	<h4>Background</h4>It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.<h4>Results</h4>Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.
format	article
author	Xavier Bosch Cristina Hernández Juan M Pericas Pamela Doti Ana Marušić
author_facet	Xavier Bosch Cristina Hernández Juan M Pericas Pamela Doti Ana Marušić
author_sort	Xavier Bosch
title	Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
title_short	Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
title_full	Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
title_fullStr	Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
title_full_unstemmed	Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
title_sort	misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/31eab59e7f4d4a6baffa663cc5685c0d
work_keys_str_mv	AT xavierbosch misconductpoliciesinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals AT cristinahernandez misconductpoliciesinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals AT juanmpericas misconductpoliciesinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals AT pameladoti misconductpoliciesinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals AT anamarusic misconductpoliciesinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals
_version_	1718422220421726208

Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.

Ejemplares similares