محاضرة اخلاقيات البحث العلمى فى مبادرة خليك فى بيتك ارجوك التى تتبناها المدرسة العلمية البحثية المصرية

1. The Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE)
for Better Science
‫الدكتور‬ ‫االستاذ‬/‫حسن‬ ‫عطيفى‬ ‫ابوالعال‬‫ين‬
‫المصرية‬ ‫البحثية‬ ‫العلمية‬ ‫المدرسة‬ ‫ورئيس‬ ‫مؤسس‬
‫المعلومات‬ ‫وتكنولوجيا‬ ‫االتصاالت‬ ‫مجلس‬ ‫مقرر‬–‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫أكاديمية‬-‫واألس‬‫تاذ‬
‫اإلصطناعى‬ ‫والذكاء‬ ‫الحاسبات‬ ‫بكلية‬–‫القاهرة‬ ‫جامعة‬-‫سكو‬ ‫جائزة‬ ‫على‬ ‫الحاصل‬‫بس‬
‫العلمى‬ ‫للبحث‬ ‫العالمية‬2019‫والثقافة‬ ‫للعلوم‬ ‫االسالمية‬ ‫الدول‬ ‫منظمة‬ ‫وجائزة‬
(‫اإليسيسكو‬)–‫عبد‬ ‫وجائزة‬‫والف‬ ‫العلوم‬ ‫ووسام‬ ‫العرب‬ ‫للباحثين‬ ‫شومان‬ ‫الحميد‬‫من‬ ‫نون‬
‫وجائ‬ ‫للتفوق‬ ‫الدولة‬ ‫وجائزة‬ ‫االنسانية‬ ‫للعلوم‬ ‫الكويت‬ ‫ج‬ ‫وجائزة‬ ‫االولى‬ ‫الطبقة‬‫جامعة‬ ‫زة‬
‫و‬ ‫العلمى‬ ‫للتفوق‬ ‫القاهرة‬...
: MostCommonEthical
Problems

2. Agenda
• Scientific Research and Trust
• Most Common Ethical Problems
– Authorship disputes
– Plagiarism
– Redundant (duplicate) publication
– Reviewer misconduct
– Conflicts of interest
– Fabricated/falsified data
• Retractions procedure
– Types of correction
– Self-correction vs. correction
– Retraction vs. self retractions
– Comments vs. Expression of Concern
– Corrigenda
– Errata
• Cases

3. Science and ethics
As research and technology are
changing society and the way we live,
scientists can no longer claim that
science is neutral but must consider the
ethical and social aspects of their work.
The word ‘ethics’ comes from the
Greek word ‘ethos’, meaning custom or
behavior. The concept of ethics was
originally proposed by the Greek
philosopher Aristotle for the discussion
of philosophical questions relating to
daily life:

4. SCIENCE AND ETHICS MUST NOT BE SEPARATED
The ethical concerns
related to the use of
human subjects and
animals in research
The ethics of
animal research.

5. Trust in Science and the Science of Trust
Trust in Science
• Science is supposedly based on
evidence, but in reality, for most
people, it is based on trust.
• The reputation of individual scientists
has been important in facilitating the
spread of scientific theories and
discoveries.
– If a scientist is, or can appear to be,
trustworthy, so might that scientist’s
ideas
• Scientific Publication is depend on
the trust!

6. Building Trust in the Academic Publications
It takes years to build trust and a
few second to destroy it

7. Researcher trust
Research trust Equation
T: Trust Researcher - C: Credibility
R: Reliability - I: Integrity
S: Self-orientation
C: Credibility” The credibility of an author is very
important in determining the quality of sources you have
located and are thinking of using for your research
project. There are several ways of determining if an
author is credible depending on the type of source.
R: Reliability is the degree of consistency of a
measure. A test will be reliable when it gives
the same repeated result under the same
conditions. Research reliability is the degree
to which research method produces stable
and consistent results.
I: Integrity in research refers to the
behaviors and values that result in “high
quality, ethical and valuable research” -
A low level of self-orientation serves to
increase trustworthiness. For example,
Believe that your answer is the correct one
and everyone else is wrong.
Self-Oriented Does Not Mean Selfishness
S: Self-Oriented When we are operating from
high self-orientation, we do not hear others.
We do not hear their questions, desires,
fears, or emotions in general.

8. The Importance of Research Ethics
Research ethics are important for a number of reasons.
They promote the aims of research, such as expanding knowledge.
They support the values required for collaborative work, such as mutual respect
and fairness. This is essential because scientific research depends on collaboration
between researchers and groups.
They mean that researchers can be held accountable for their actions. Many
researchers are supported by public money, and regulations on conflicts of
interest, misconduct, and research involving humans or animals are necessary to
ensure that money is spent appropriately.
They ensure that the public can trust research. For people to support and fund
research, they have to be confident in it.
Read more at: https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/research-ethics.html

9. The consequences of a
lack of integrity in
research
• Losethepublictrustinresearch
• Misdirectingfunding(leadingtoresources
beingwasted.)
• Damagingreputations
• Riskingpublichealth

10. Improving Research Integrity
Open Access publication Publishing data-sets
Checklists
Reporting on clinical trials
some journals, such as Nature, require
researchers to complete a ‘checklist’ with
details of the statistical analysis, samples
and computer codes used, and how to
access data sets. This makes it easier to
reproduce results and thus promotes
research integrity.
half of the clinical trials on licensed medicines
go unpublished. Pre-registration of trials and
pre-publication of protocols enables
methodologies to be scrutinized in advance,
encouraging good practice.

11. Integrity in Research
• Integrity in research refers
to the behaviors and values
that result in “high quality,
ethical and valuable
research”.
it creates trust, and trust is at the heart of
the research process. Researchers must
be able to trust each other's work, and
"they must also be trusted by society
since they provide scientific expertise that
may impact people's lives"

12. HTTPS://PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG/
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a forum for editors of peer-
reviewed journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record. It
supports and encourages editors to report, catalogue and instigate investigations
into ethical problems in the publication process.

13. Most Common Ethical Problems
• Authorship disputes are difficult to
resolve. Disputes can harm both the
individuals involved and the
communities they belong to.
Communities usually have practices
intended to prevent disputes before
they occur and resolve them if they
do occur
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data

14. How to recognize potential
authorship problems
1. Language quality in the paper does not match with the language in the cover
letter (legal)
2. Unspecified role in they acknowledgment ( thanked without contribution)
3. Correspondence author are not able to response in the reviewer comments
4. Paper is edited or revised by someone NOT listed as co-author or
acknowledgment
5. A similarity check shows work derived from a thesis where the student is not on
the author list or acknowledged
6. Tracking in manuscript shows that authors have been added or removed
7. Authorship changes without notification during revision stages
8. Several similar articles have been published under different author names (This
may be detected by an online search or plagiarism check)

15. Case Study: Withdrawal request by an author
• Journal received a request by an author who
states not to have contributed to an article
published in 2020. The author claims that his
name was used without his knowledge and that
the corresponding author has been retired for
several years and can no longer be reached. At the
time of submission, we received a copyright
transfer signed with the author’s name (we
request all authors to sign the form). We are not in
favor of withdrawing the article as we feel we have
a signed copyright form.
– Questions for the COPE Forum
• How should we reply to the author requesting
withdrawal of the paper?
• We believe a copyright transfer form signed by all
author has legal value for us: is this the case?
COPE advises that it is good policy for journals to copy all authors, not just the corresponding author,
in their written communications and emails regarding papers submitted for publication.
The institution can determine the
facts of the case and determine if the
signed copyright form was faked,
which would be fraud.

16. Authorships
• Contributed substantially to the conception (idea)
and design of the study, the acquisition of data, or
the analysis and interpretation
• Drafted or provided critical revision of the article
• Provided final approval of the version to publish
• It is agreed to be responsible for all aspects of the
work to ensure that questions regarding the accuracy
or integrity of any part of the work are properly
investigated and resolved

17. Most Common Ethical Problems
• The plagiarism is defined as copying
ideas, passages of text from
someone else, and using them as if
they were ones own. According to a
committee of publication ethics
guidelines plagiarism ranges from
unreferenced use of others’
published and unpublished ideas to
the submission of a complete article
under a new authorship
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
General suspected ethical
concerns

18. "Quotations" Paraphrasing &
Summarizing
Quotations
• A quote is the reproduction of the words
of the original author. To quote, follow
the steps below:
• Select the quote you'd like to use in your
paper.
• Record it exactly as it appears in the
original source.
– Use ellipses (...) to mark spots where
you have left out words from the
original text.
• Place quotation marks around the
complete text.
• Note the source and page number of the
quotation in a launch statement or in
parentheses.
Paraphrasing
• A paraphrase is the rewording of
something written or spoken by
someone else. To paraphrase, follow
these steps:
• Read the original text until you grasp its
meaning; then set it aside.
• Using your memory, write down the
main points or concepts.
• Change the structure of the text by
varying the opening, changing the order
of sentences, lengthening or shortening
sentences, etc.
• Replace keywords within the sentences
with synonyms or phrases with similar
meanings.
• Note the source and page number of
the paraphrase in a launch statement or
in parentheses.
According to Lennie, "[...] I got you to look
after me, and you got me to look after you,
and that's why" (Steinbeck 14).
Summarizing
A summary is a brief statement of the main points of a
source. To summarize, follow the steps below:
1. Select a passage of text, article, chapter or entire
book that supports your research.
2. Read the selection until you feel you have a good
understanding of its main points.
3. Write a sentence or two in your own words that
captures the main points.
4. Revise your summary so it reads clearly.
Note the source (and page number, if applicable) of
the summary in a launch statement or in
parentheses.

19. How can editors deal with text recycling?
• Editors should consider each case
of text recycling on an individual
basis:
– How much text is recycled
– Where in the article the text recycling
occurs
– Whether the source of the recycled
text has been acknowledged
– Whether the article is a research or
non-research article
– Whether there is a breach of
copyright
– In some circumstances, cultural
norms at the time and place of
publication
• Introduction/background: in some
degree
• Methods : An improvement/new
application
• Results: Text recycling is almost always
unacceptable in the results section if it
duplicates previously published data
• Discussion: Some degree of text recycling
may be acceptable in the discussion;
• Conclusion: Text recycling is unlikely to be
acceptable
• Figures and Tables: Reproduction of
previously published figures or tables may
represent data duplication: needs
permission

20. What action should be taken if text recycling is discovered?
Text recycling in a submitted
manuscript
• Text recycling may be discovered in a
submitted manuscript by editors or
reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism
detection software.
• If overlap is considered minor, action
may not be necessary or the authors
may be asked to re-write overlapping
sections and cite their previous
article(s) if they have not done so.
• More significant overlap may result in
rejection of the manuscript
Text recycling in a published
article
• If text recycling is
discovered in a published
article (for example by a
reader alerting an editor), it
may be necessary to publish
a correction to, or
retraction of, the original
article.

21. Why people plagiarism
• Lack of Writing Skills
• Misconception/ ignorance of
plagiarism.
• Lack of strict academic discipline.
• Lack of research methods skills.
• Lack of referencing/citation skills.
• Time factor.
• Easily availability of reading
materials/text on the internet.
• Lack of knowledge or subject matter.
• Lack of patience.
• Cut-and-Paste culture in research and
academic community.

22. What is considered as
plagiarism?
• Taking quotations or passages
directly without citation
• Taking ideas without giving credit
• Changing words but copying the
sentence structure of a source
without giving credit
• Failing to put a quotation in
quotation marks
• Giving incorrect information about
the source of information.
• Copying so many words or ideas that
it makes up the majority of work,
whether credit is given or not.
• Taking work from previous work
without reference to that work.

23. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

24. Suspected
plagiarism
in a
published
manuscript
Correction

25. Suspected
fabricated data in
a submitted
manuscript

26. Most Common Ethical Problems
• Duplicateorredundant publications isthepublication
ofapaperthatissubstantiallysimilartoapublished
paperbythesameauthor,withoutacknowledgingthe
sourceandwithoutobtainingthepermissionofthe
originalcopyrightholder.
• Theremaybesuperfluousdifferencesbetweenthe
originalandthesecondpaper,suchasanewtitleora
modifiedabstract,butthedatasetandfindingsstaythe
same.
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data

27. Why is duplicate publication a problem?
• It leads to a waste of editorial
and review resources.
• It denies other authors the
chance to publish their work by
unjustly taking up
limited/competitive journal
space.
• It is a “sign of poor scholarship”
• May indicate that the “study
contributes only marginally to
the literature.”
• Case study: An author has
published an article a regional
English-language published by his
university. are not free to republish
the paper. The author then submits
the paper
• for publication to a journal. Would
this considered a case of duplicate
publication?
• Answer: Yes! The author must
inform the second journal of
already published paper in
university journal.

28. • Case study: We have received threats
of legal action from the authors of a
manuscript rejected by our journal,
henceforth referred to as journal A.
These “aggrieved” authors claim that
their manuscript was unfairly reviewed
by a close competitor, who then used
some of their findings in a paper
subsequently published in journal B,
without either attribution or citation.
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
For Discussion

29. What to do if you
suspect a reviewer
has appropriated an
author’s ideas or
data

30. Most Common Ethical Problems
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
• A situation in which a person is in a position to
derive personal benefit from actions or
decisions made in their official capacity.
• Conflicts of interest can include both financial
and non-financial gains.
• For example, Nepotism is the practice of giving
favors to relatives and close friends,
• For example, consider a peer reviewer who is
evaluating a study that decreases the
importance of the reviewer’s own research.
• This could lead the reviewer to recommend
rejection of the study even if the study itself is
original and robust, which gives rise to a conflict
of interest
Conflicts of interest can involve research sponsors, authors, journals, journal staff,
publishers, and peer reviewers.

31. Most Common Ethical Problems
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
• A study requires outside funding, this can be a major source of conflicting interests;
for instance in cases where the manufacturer of a drug is funding a study into its
safety and efficacy or where the sponsor hopes to use the research to defend itself in
litigation.
• Sponsors of a study may involve themselves in the design, execution, analysis, and
write-up of a study. In extreme cases, they may carry out the research and ghostwrite
the article with almost no involvement from the nominal author
Less quality
research outcome

32. Deceased author
• After a manuscript was accepted, an author passed
away before they could complete the conflict of interest
statement and copyright transfer documents. The
publishing company requires that all authors complete
these documents prior to publishing.
• The other authors do not want to remove the deceased
author from the manuscript.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
• Who has the authority to complete these documents for
the deceased author?
• Are there any special notations that should be made in
the manuscript? Note: For the purposes of transparency, it would be
useful for the editor to add a statement or footnote
on the paper, including the date of death in relation
to participation in authorship
For Discussion!

33. Most Common Ethical Problems
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
General suspected ethical
concerns
Data fabrication: This
concerns the making up of
research findings.
Data falsification:
Manipulating research data
with the intention of giving a
false impression. This
includes manipulating
images (e.g. micrographs,
gels, radiological images),
removing outliers or
“inconvenient” results,
changing, adding or omitting
data points, etc

34. What to do if
you suspect
image
manipulation in
a published
article?

35. Most Common Ethical Problems
Authorship disputes
Plagiarism
Redundant (duplicate)
publication
Reviewer misconduct
Conflicts of interest
Fabricated/falsified data
Suspected fabricated data in a submitted
manuscript
https://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-
cms/rest/v1/content/4162/data/v2
Suspected fabricated data in a PUBLISHED
manuscript
https://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-
cms/rest/v1/content/4168/data/v2

36. Research integrity: Sabotage!
• Sabotage is when a student or professor prevents
others from completing their work. The research
sabotage is a type of misbehavior…..
https://www.nature.com/articles/467516a
ChiefwithstudentsandProfessors
hyper-competitive environment,

37. Sabotaged Scientist Yale University and Her Lab Chief
Potential crime
A month after she started her postdoc in the
developmental biology lab. she began
producing transgenic zebrafish; they all died,
not once, but time after time.
A lab technician assured her she was doing
everything right
When hidden cameras were installed in the
lab, they revealed a fellow postdoc poisoning
her fish.
Magdalena Koziol

39. Types of
correction
s
https://www.americanscientist.org/

40. Self Correction
What To Do When You Realize
Your Publication Is Fatally Flawed
https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/self-correction-34431
In my opinion, there’s no reason other than
one’s ego to not correct something. The
longer you let it go, the worse the problem
gets.

41. HONEST ERRORS AND SELF-
RETRACTION SHOULD NOT BE
STIGMATIZED OR PENALIZED
Self-retraction: a short retraction notice signed by all co-
authors of the original paper and issued if and only if the co-authors
make a joint and unsolicited request of retraction to the journal.

42. IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SHOULD WE
WRITE TO THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE OR WRITE
ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THAT TOPIC?
While reading an article
from a reputed journal,
I have found some
blunders, not only in
mathematical equations
but also in results. What
is the best approach to
deal with such a
situation?
Comments – Expression of Concerns – Reply to
Reader

43. Retraction
• Can authors
separate
themselves
from a retracted
publication?
• If retraction is due
to the actions of
some, but not all,
authors of a
publication, the
notice of
retraction should
mention this.
Who should issue the retraction?
Articles may be retracted by their
author(s) or by the journal editor. In
some cases, retractions are issued
jointly or on behalf of the journal’s
owner (eg, a learned society or
publisher).
Retracted articles should generally
NOT be removed from electronic
archives or printed copies but their
retracted status should be highlighted

44. Errata
• An errata
refers to a
correction of
errors
introduced to
the article by
the publisher.
• All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author
at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified by the
author and corrected by the publisher before final publication.
• Authors who notice an error should contact the Journal
Manager
• Errata may be published to correct text or information that appears
anywhere within an earlier published article. Errata must be labeled and
published in citable form; that is, the erratum must appear on a
numbered page in an issue of the journal that published the original
article. For online journals or online-only content, the erratum must be
readily discernable in the table of contents of a subsequent issue and
must be associated with identifiable pagination or e-location.
An important difference between the traditional print journal and the online journal (or the online version of a print journal) is that
an article can have more than one version online. Typically, an article will be available as both full-text HTML and a PDF showing the
traditional print layout. If an erratum is published, both versions should be corrected for errors; otherwise multiple
versions of the same article exist

45. Corrigenda
• 1.
An error to be corrected.
• 2.
A list of errors in a paper al
ong with their correcti
ons.
Notification of an important error made by
the author(s) that affects the publication
record or the scientific integrity of the paper,
or the reputation of the authors or the journal.
What Should a Corrigendum include?
The complete bibliographic information for the corrected article:
- Acknowledgement of the person who helped find the error(s)
- Explanation of the correction, whether brief or extensive
- Brief errors can be mentioned along with the corrected form o In the correction of
an entire figure or table, only the erroneous parts need to be listed, along with a
complete revised figure or table
- Citation of any articles related to the correction, along with a standard reference list

46. Errata
• An errata
refers to a
correction of
errors
introduced to
the article by
the publisher.
An important difference between the traditional print journal and the online journal (or the online version of a print journal) is that
an article can have more than one version online. Typically, an article will be available as both full-text HTML and a PDF showing the
traditional print layout. If an erratum is published, both versions should be corrected for errors; otherwise multiple versions of the
same article exist
All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the
author at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified
by the author and corrected by the publisher before final
publication.
Authors who notice an error should contact the Journal
Manager
Errata may be published to correct text or information that appears
anywhere within an earlier published article. Errata must be labeled
and published in citable form; that is, the erratum must appear on a
numbered page in an issue of the journal that published the original
article. For online journals or online-only content, the erratum must be
readily discernible in the table of contents of a subsequent issue and
must be associated with identifiable pagination or e-location.

47. Case study
Professor Abo runs a very active, productive
research group with several graduate students and
doctors. He is a well regarded scientist who reviews
many manuscripts and serves on study sections
and other review panels. Abo makes an effort to
help his SRGE member (trainees) develop their
communication skills: they give talks in group
meeting,seminarsinthedepartment,andpapersat
meetings and they write reports and papers. To
help his trainees understand the peer review
system,Aboaskonemembertoreviewmanuscripts
assignedtoAbofromprestigiousjournal.
Some of SRGE member have become quite
skilled; their reviews need virtually no editing
beforeProfessor Abo signs themand sendsthem
tothejournals.
Professor Abo is surprised when a colleague says
thatthispracticeisnotethical.
Are there ethical
issues?

48. The announcement is the latest example of the "reproducibility
crisis" facing the sciences. In October 2018, the journal Nature
wrote online that there was "growing alarm about results that
cannot be reproduced".
Reaction to Prof
Arnold's tweets was
mostly positive,
however, as her
colleagues
commended her
honesty.
"Can I please express
my respect for you
bringing this to
everyone's attention.
This shows that
anyone can make an
honest mistake and
acting to correct that
is the best response.
Thank you,"
Retraction
“a flawed experiment — and the subsequent discovery of the flaw — can be as
valuable as the perfect study”

49. • I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting
thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract
and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few
weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after
major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I
wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several
“actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness
of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results)
all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues
with the figures, etc.).
• Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost
unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been
addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at
least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible).
However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal,
which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing
to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.
Case Study
What would you suggest me to do?
Should I just re-send
my earlier review?
Add a note to the editor
about my knowledge of
the “history” of the
paper?
Or maybe even include
it in my review, so the
authors are aware that
people know of their
behavior, and maybe
feel bad enough to
change their ways?

50. ‫علمية‬ ‫جائزة‬ ‫أهم‬
‫عالمية‬ ‫بحثية‬ ‫جهة‬ ‫من‬

52. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The essential mission of SRGE toward the research
and education in Egypt is to foster learning and
promoting research integrity in the current and next
generation of researchers in Egypt. SRGE is
rededicating itself to this fundamental purpose.
**Slides are adapted from several presentations, papers, and notes on the internet
as well as Elsevier and Springer ethic, COPE,.. In addition, experiences **
Join Zoom Meeting
https://iauvle.zoom.us/j/97628608418
Meeting ID: 976 2860 8418