Compliance with best practice guidelines on publication ethics: Where does Pharmactuel stand? A case study

Information for authors and editorial policies

Peer Review and the PJOHNS: Principles, Problems, and Promise

A the concept of integrity in human actions is universal and inherent to any relationship in a civilized society, some guidance should be given to specific situations to set standards of good practice. In times of great academic pressure to publish, double care is necessary to preserve the integrity of research and to prevent publication misconduct. The Revista Odonto Ciencia (Journal of Dental Science) strongly recommends that our authors, reviewers and editors follow the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications” by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Furthermore, our journal is affiliated with the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors (ABEC) and the BVS Virtual Community of Scientific Editors, which provide additional discussion on editorial policies. Our journal also supports the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, an international initiative that discloses fundamental principles and professional responsibilities related to research and publication integrity. During the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, July 2010, in Singapore, scholars, researchers, funders, representatives of research institutions and publishers from all over the world developed this global guide to the responsible conduct of research. In synergy with this scenario, the Revista Odonto Ciencia (Journal of Dental Science) attended the First Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (I BRISPE), in December 2010. One of the goals of the meeting was “to stimulate the involvement of the country’s academic community in the development of policies and in decision making concerning ethics and research integrity at the international level”. The Revista Odonto Ciencia (Journal of Dental Science) is committed to help to disseminate this important information and the good practices in research and publication. Further information can be found at:

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and ‘predatory’ sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

Medical research usually involves lots of people. That's a good thing, as few individuals possess all the skills, let alone the time, to design, perform, analyse and report a substantial trial by themselves. But it poses problems when research is reported. The list of authors (or by-line) serves several functions: it tells readers and editors who did the work and allows authors to take credit if the work is good and responsibility if it is flawed. The most widely cited guidelines on authorship come from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).1 The 1988 version stated that only those who had played a part in the conception and design or analysis and interpretation of a study could qualify as authors, but in 2000 ‘acquisition of data’ was added as a qualifying activity.2 Authors must also take part in drafting or revising the article and should approve the final version. But, as noted on the BMJ Instructions to Authors, this definition ‘has some serious flaws’.3 For example, in a multi-centre study involving a large number of centres, each of which recruits a similar (but relatively small) number of patients, who decides which investigators will also be involved in developing a manuscript? What's more, a survey of 66 British researchers in 1997 showed that only 24% had heard of the ICMJE authorship criteria, 11-15% disagreed with at least one of the criteria and 62% disagreed that authors should meet all three criteria (study involvement, writing the paper and approval).4 The ICMJE guidelines also say nothing helpful about the order of authors (simply that this should be ‘a joint decision’). Yet academic appointments often depend on the length of the candidate's publication list, on the assumption that individuals are listed in order of their contribution and that all deserving authors have been listed. But the value of different contributions to a research project is highly subjective. How should one rank one person who designed a trial but recruited no patients, against a second who recruited most of the patients but played no part in the design, against a third who analysed the data? And what if the study report on which the paper was based was prepared by a writer working for the sponsor—should that person be an author? The traditional system of author listing gives readers and editors (and reviewers, if the journal uses open review) no detail about who did what or how the order was decided. Some journals permit authors to explain the order (e.g. if it is alphabetical). Bearing the name Wager, I will leave readers to guess what I think of alphabetical ordering—and whether Dr Abbasi agrees! Because authorship matters to people, and because researchers are human and therefore do not always behave ethically, abuse of authorship will always be a problem. Of the 212 cases considered by the Committee on Publication Ethics over a six-year period, authorship issues were the second most common category, accounting for 12% of the cases.5 This is probably a gross underestimate of the true extent of the problem, since with traditional author bylines, editors are usually blissfully unaware of the abuses they conceal. The commentary to one particularly egregious case featured in the 2003 COPE report noted ‘all too often claims for authorship are still based on power and influence and not necessarily contributions’.6 The two most common problems are gift authorship, when the undeserving swell the list, and ghost authorship, when deserving authors do not appear.7 The motivation for such misconduct is varied but probably includes colleagues playing the game of mutual CV enhancement (‘I’ll put your name on my paper if you add my name to yours'); ancient but dishonourable traditions of including the professor's name on every paper; researchers adding a ‘big name’ onto the list to increase respectability or the chances of acceptance; and the usual power politics and rivalry that bedevil any human organization. If readers and editors do not know who did what, they are unlikely to detect most cases of authorship abuse. Listing individuals' contributions should reduce many of the problems of ghosts and gifts and follows the spirit of transparency that underlies many other aspects of responsible research reporting. Ghosts can be brought back to life by editors asking who analysed the data or wrote the first draft, if these roles are missing. Guests will be revealed as such (and editors can choose whether they challenge them discreetly before publication or let them be listed for everyone to see). The order of authors and rigid inclusion criteria become less important—if you want to know how many studies a person has designed, or whether they are an energetic recruiter, you can look and see rather than try to guess from the order of listing. Perhaps more importantly for most readers, contributorship encourages transparency about the role of the sponsor in every aspect of the project—something that has often been misrepresented in the past.8,9 Are there any disadvantages? I suppose the list of contributions takes up a small amount of precious journal space, but in the internet age this seems an irrelevance. Authors/contributors will need to be educated and cajoled (early initiatives with voluntary contributor lists were surprisingly poorly adopted).10 Editors also need to pay attention to the way in which contributions are elicited, since Marusic et al. have shown that ticking boxes produces more apparently ‘compliant’—but not necessarily truthful—responses (i.e. with a higher proportion of listed contributors meeting ICMJE criteria) than allowing authors to state contributions in free text.11 Some editors have expressed concern that identifying contributions will split responsibility, so that if an aspect of a study is later found to be incorrect or fraudulent, contributors will pass blame onto each other.7 The ICMJE has debated whether authors should be expected to take public responsibility for an entire project or just their respective portions of it.2 Some journals therefore ask at least one contributor to guarantee the integrity of the research,7 but this is probably of little concern to most readers. Contributorship is not a panacea. Research groups may adopt bizarre criteria for selecting authors (as they probably always have done, whatever editors tell them) but at least this will be transparent. Determined guests and ghost-creators can give false information and put their names to untrue statements, but pleading ignorance will no longer be an excuse. Readers and honest authors (sorry, contributors) should therefore welcome the JRSM's new policy.

Authorship.

Recent findings of authorship criteria violations in the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica show that almost 40% of authors do not meet necessary criteria for authorship and thus indicate the need for better dissemination of editorial policy on authorship in our journal. We believe that such cases are mostly due to the authors’ unawareness or the lack of understanding of the authorship criteria. With this article we therefore wish to declare our editorial policy on authorship and authorship criteria. Biochemia Medica endorses the authorship policy provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Information on authorship is assessed by self-reported authorship claims during on-line manuscript submission. Those who meet ICMJE criteria shall be listed as authors, and all listed authors shall fulfill ICMJE criteria. All authors should be responsible for content of the article and have to know other authors’ contributions to the study. Biochemia Medica will follow recommendations provided by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts for possible disputes. By adhering to this procedure we hope to raise awareness about the importance of compliance with ICMJE authorship recommendations.

Prospective Clinical Trial Registration: A Prerequisite for Publishing Your Results.

Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine

[This retracts the article on p. 49 in vol. 1, PMID: 22606658.].

BackgroundTo assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”.MethodsResponses of authors (n=1425) who submitted their manuscripts (n=345) to the Croatian Medical Journal, an international general medical journal, from March 2009 until July 2010 were transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria. Statements that could not be matched were separately categorized. Responses according to the number of authors or their byline position on the manuscript were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test and Moses test of extreme reactions.ResultsThe number of authors per manuscript ranged from 1 to 26 (median=4, IQR=3-6), with the median of 2 contributions per author (IQR=2-3). Authors’ responses could be matched to the ICMJE criteria in 1116 (87.0%) cases. Among these, only 15.6% clearly declared contributions from all 3 ICMJE criteria; however, if signing of the authorship form was taken as the fulfillment of the third ICMJE criterion, overall fraction of deserving authorship was 54.2%. Non-ICMJE contributions were declared by 98 (7.6%) authors whose other contributions could be matched to ICMJE criteria, and by 116 (13.0%) authors whose contributions could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. The most frequently reported non-ICMJE contribution was literature review. Authors on manuscripts with more than 8 authors declared more contributions than those on manuscript with 8 or fewer authors: median 2, IQR 1–4, vs. median 2, IQR 1–3, respectively (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.001; Moses Test of Extreme Reactions, p<0.001). Almost a third of single authors (n=9; 31.0%) reported contributions that could not be matched to any ICMJE criterion.ConclusionsIn cases of multi-author collaborative efforts but not in manuscripts with fewer authors open-ended authorship declaration without instructions on ICMJE criteria elicited responses from authors that were similar to responses when ICMJE criteria were explicitly required. Current authorship criteria and the practice of contribution declaration should be revised in order to capture deserving authorship in biomedical research.

A paper recently published in Lifestyle Medicine highlights the importance of informed and respectful debate as part of the scientific endeavour. Appearing in the first edition of the journal, Jacob et al.1 examined data from 7403 participants from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS), a nationally representative survey of the English adult population conducted by the National Centre for Social Research and Leicester University.2 They found that there was a negative association between Verbal IQ, estimated using the National Adult Reading Test (NART), and obesity. During peer review, the manuscript was praised for its clear and robust statistical analyses. However, due to the nature of the topic, editorial review included assessing the manuscript for inappropriate or discriminatory language or conclusions, as well as ensuring both scientific and analytical merit in line with the journal's scope. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the paper still resulted in significant vocal debate on social media (Twitter), including calls for the paper's retraction. As Twitter does not uniformly allow for reasoned discussions, formal letters to the editor were solicited by Wiley to highlight any significant issues and allow for formal response by the original authors. This process is still an important aspect of moving scientific research forward, and as a journal we follow both International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)3 and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishing principles,4 which include giving a platform for rebuttal to published articles and encouraging logical and reasoned scientific debate. Both the letter to the editor by Redsell et al.5 and the response by Jacob et al.6 are included in this issue. While we stand by the publication of the manuscript – as further outlined below – we believe that it is the job of the scientific community at large to iteratively move a field forward based on discussions such as those highlighted here. Therefore, to some extent, each reader can and will make up their own minds based on the evidence, following scientific principles to do so. We hope this commentary assists that process. Using weight or normative estimators of body composition, such as the body mass index (BMI), as predictors of individual health or health outcomes is both controversial and highly emotive.7 This is clear from the tone of both the letter by Redsell et al.5 and the response by Jacob et al.6 One thing that we feel is absolutely necessary in order to move discussions in this field forward is the separation of our personal feelings about a topic from the scientific arguments, as much as that is possible. In line with that, both the letter writers and article authors were given opportunities to tone down their language, and both articles have been lightly edited (in language but not content) to more constructively moderate the discourse. A discrete focus on the scientific arguments and process of a manuscript is important because Redsell and co-authors present unsubstantiated accusations such as that the manuscript is ‘ill-advised (at best)’, and include veiled threats that ‘this paper is also likely to cause harm, which may risk reputational damage’. The latter assertion was largely focused on how the findings may be portrayed by the media. We absolutely agree that accurate reporting of scientific findings in the media – as well as ensuring that research is not discriminatory – is an essential part of science publication and communication. However, the broader implication in the letter appears to be that research into populations at particular risk of, or potential downstream (health) consequences of, obesity should be avoided because it may be inaccurately portrayed in the media and used to propagate weight stigma. This argument also includes non-sequiturs in the assumptions that risk factors for obesity usually regarded as non-modifiable are not of interest for potential targeting of modifiable risk factors, and that patients and the media will necessarily fuel negative stereotypes. Patients, including the patient representative who helped write the editorial in our last issue,8 are clear that they want to see the evidence for themselves, which the open access model supports. Therefore, it would be a curious approach to sanitise the content due to potential for misinterpretation rather than accept submitted articles based on their scientific quality. Redsell et al.5 also suggest that the original study suffered from a number of methodological flaws and breached two ethical principles (beneficence and justice). Though there is some discussion regarding the utility of the National Adult Reading Test in this setting, no clear methodological flaws – either in the analysis or the interpretation – were raised. We agree that the quality of a data used to examine a specific question can almost always be improved. For instance, it must be recognised that societal inequities are significant drivers of both obesity and 'performance' in normative tests such as those for intelligence quotient (IQ)9 with the history, use, and interpretation of the original IQ tests grounded in both sexism and racism.10, 11 Jacob et al. performed multiple sensitivity analyses to adjust for individual background and environmental factors that might influence the outcome, but the direction and magnitude of the effect remained consistent. Importantly, though the authors could have been more explicit about other unknown confounders, as well as the fact that socioeconomic parameters such as race, income, and education are often proxies for much greater social inequities and a wide range of lived experiences,12 they performed appropriate adjustments with the available data and were clear about the limitations. This does not preclude the possibility that different results will be seen in the future if datasets containing a broader range of equitable cognitive tests and accurate body composition measurements are collated and analysed. Advances in epidemiology like other branches of science is iterative and while no clinical research study is perfect, constructive criticism is a key driver of improving study design and conduct. The intended goals of public health epidemiology, and what can and cannot be concluded from a particular dataset or analysis, is a crucial aspect of evidence-based medicine. Redsell et al.5 do rightly state that the original manuscript only ‘explores the association between IQ and obesity, not causation’, while also accusing the authors of implying causation. The former is absolutely true, as is the case with any epidemiological study, but Jacob et al6 clearly do not attempt to assume causality, presenting previous work that could drive causality (if present) in either direction. Multiple factors may explain the results, from unknown confounding by socioeconomic and environmental factors to an inflammatory phenotype associated with visceral adipose tissue that may impact the brain,9, 13 and while these questions remain it is imperative that objective research continue. The way the results are written by Jacob et al. is largely driven by the requirements of multivariate statistical analyses, where a response variable (in this case obesity as a binary outcome) must be chosen, along with associated predictor variables. The outcomes of these models include an odds ratio for obesity, but do not imply that the predictors (e.g., Verbal IQ) are directly causative. Redsell et al.5 do also highlight papers that support the potential for better metrics and assessments for use when studying this question in the future, though one might argue that their representation of cited literature differs from that stated in the papers themselves. For instance, citing McGurn et al. as evidence that the performance of the NART was only modest when that paper describes a strong enough correlation to validate the use of the test.14 As with any standardised test, we agree with Redsell et al.5 that the variance in NART scores (as well as BMI) due to other factors such as material and social deprivation is both possible and likely, but this is at least partly addressed by the statistical adjustments and does not invalidate the results as presented. We also agree that self-reported BMI does not perfectly reflect clinical measurements,15 as also acknowledged by Jacob et al.6 in the original manuscript, although self-report is generally regarded as a valid approach. If anything, self-report is likely to lead to an under-estimate of BMI so is likely to have underestimated the prevalence of obesity in this dataset and as such diluted any associations. Correct attribution and citation is important, so the letter includes full references inserted at the proofing stage, which clarifies which publications (especially newspapers) may be more likely to misinterpret the science and create headlines, albeit that the references are not recent or relating to policy in the country of publication. We do operate in an international environment, so global awareness is important too, both in not bowing to excessive perceived pressure from the approach of certain UK newspapers nor being influenced by censoring in more totalitarian regimes. There is a balance to strike here: recent events in the Washington Capitol and social media's involvement and subsequent repudiation of longstanding approaches show this is a developing area. We do strongly believe that every person has the right to feel safe, comfortable, and happy in their body, and multiple studies have indeed shown that damaging weight stigma is incredibly prevalent in the popular media, contributing significantly to society's negative viewpoints around body weight.16 Work by the “health at every size” (HAES) movement is both important and growing, often highlighting the fact that societal weight stigma and diet culture can significantly negatively impact the health and quality of life of certain targeted individuals,17-20 as well as the fact that BMI or body composition may not be deterministic with respect to long-term health outcomes.7, 21, 22 These are important issues must be addressed head-on, for instance by tackling dangerous aspects of diet culture and media misrepresentation of weight and health, as well as clearly separating out epidemiological work designed to improve risk stratification and policy at the societal level from the nuanced, holistic, and personalised approaches that should be taken to improve an individual's health trajectory with their consent and concordance, which will most often include interventions that are weight neutral. These societal issues should not, however, prevent obesity research at the population and mechanistic levels being performed to identify those at risk, or potential interventions, particularly within systems and institutions. Identifying at-risk populations to help institute systemic change, rather than place health solely as the responsibility of the individual23, 24 is an important goal of research using population datasets such as that presented by Jacob et al.,1 and these studies are never intended to be used to make statements about individuals. However, there is compelling evidence that obesity is a strong driver of poor health outcomes, more powerful for many than physical inactivity.25 Depending on the criteria used, 7–50% of those with obesity are metabolically healthy,26 but even metabolically healthy obesity appears to be associated with an intermediate risk profile for outcomes such as cardiovascular disease.27 Recent systematic reviews have also suggested that (i) weight loss interventions may improve health-related quality of life, with the effect potentially correlated with magnitude of weight loss,28 and (ii) that behavioural weight management interventions result in improvements in a number of mental health outcomes, including body image concerns and self-efficacy,29 without negatively impacting overall mental health. None of this negates an individual's experience of weight and weight stigma, but instead highlights the importance of objective assessment of the evidence at a higher level coupled with individualised patient-centric approaches. Therefore, those who want to help those impacted may be better served by encouraging the use of valid tools for both population and individual risk assessment, as this can inform empowering choices by the individuals, when shared in appropriate ways, which will vary by country, setting and individual.30 In summary, with respect to the original manuscript and subsequent communications, we respectfully maintain that the original manuscript meets our criteria for publication. Retraction is not justified on the basis of the arguments presented. However, we welcome rational scientific debate and hope that by publishing both the letter and reply we can encourage a constructive collaborative approach to destigmatising obesity rather than shaming those who do not avoid addressing difficult and complex issues. FB is Editor-in-Chief for the Wiley open access journal Lifestyle Medicine and Director of Science and Research for the British Society of Lifestyle Medicine. SK is a bariatric physician, Regional Director for South Wales & on Nutrition Interface Group for the British Society of Lifestyle Medicine. TW is an Associate Editor for the Wiley open access journal Lifestyle Medicine and is a Trustee of British Society of Lifestyle Medicine.

As scholarly publishing navigates the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI), encompassing generative AI, natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs), and autonomous agents, the editorial ecosystem must adapt to maintain its core integrity. This editorial evaluates the operational advantages of AI, such as enhanced efficiency and automated integrity checks, against systemic risks, including hallucination, bias, and confidentiality breaches. Drawing on recent empirical validations and policy frameworks from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and major publishers, we outline a comprehensive editorial policy for the Journal of Metaverse. This policy emphasizes human oversight, transparency, and domain-specific rigor. We also introduce practical implementation mechanisms, including an AI-use disclosure template, auditing protocols, and specific reporting requirements for metaverse research. Furthermore, this editorial explores the strategic use of generative AI for post-publication science communication, demonstrating how automated infographics and multimedia summaries can significantly enhance research visibility and broad accessibility. This document serves as both a functional policy framework and a contribution to the discourse on responsible AI integration in academic publishing.

Follow-up of Artificial Intelligence Development and its Controlled Contribution to the Article: Step to the Authorship?

The Journal is the primary organ of Continuing Paediatric Medical Education in Sri Lanka. The journal also has a website. Free full text access is available for all readers.The Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is now indexed in SciVerse Scopus (Source Record ID 19900193609), Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR), CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International Global Health Database), DOAJ and is available in Google, as well as Google Scholar.The policies of the journal are modelled on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations.