Scientific Misconduct Encountered By APAME Journals: An Online Survey
- Author:
Lai-Meng Looi
;
Li Xuan Wong
;
Cing Chai Koh
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
publication ethics;
plagiarism;
APAME;
scientific misconduct
- From:The Malaysian Journal of Pathology
2015;37(3):213-218
- CountryMalaysia
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
In June 2015, invitations were sent by email to 151 APAME journals to participate in an online
survey with an objective of gaining insight into the common publication misconduct encountered by
APAME editors. The survey, conducted through SurveyMonkey over a 20-day-period, comprised 10
questions with expansions to allow anecdotes limited to 400 characters, estimated to take less than
10 minutes to complete. Only one invitation was issued per journal, targeting (in order of priority)
editors, editorial board members and editorial staff, and limited by email availability. 54 (36%) journals
responded. 98% of respondents held Editor or Editorial Board positions. All respondent journals
have editorial policies on publication ethics and 96% provide instructions related to ethics. 45% use
anti-plagiarism software to screen manuscripts, the most popular being iThenticate, CrossCheck and
Turnitin. Up to 50% of journals had encountered studies without IRB approval. Author misconduct
encountered were (in rank order): plagiarism (75%), duplicate publication (58%), unjustified
authorship (39%), authorship disputes (33%), data falsification (29%), data/image manipulation
(27%), conflict of interest (25%), copyright violation (17%) and breach of confidentiality (10%).
Reviewer misconduct encountered were: conflict of interest (19%), plagiarism (17%), obstructive
behavior (17%), abusive language (13%) and breach of confidentiality (13%). Notwithstanding the
limitations of the survey and the response rate, a few insights have been gained: (1) the need for
strengthening the ethical culture of researchers/authors and reviewers, (2) anti-plagiarism software
can improve plagiarism detection by about 15%, and (3) the need for technical support to detect
plagiarism, duplicate publication and image manipulation.
- Full text:P020160315410494267092.pdf
