8 Dissemination of Information
8.1 Why is dissemination of information an ethical concern?
Publish or perish. It is a phrase most scientists will have heard at one time or another. In essence, it means that researchers are expected to publish a certain number of papers per year to retain their funding and position within their institution. This pervasive publish or perish mentality is one of the key reasons unethical practices occur, as scientists attempt to rush or make their research more significant so that they can continue to work in their chosen field. Ethical dissemination of information within science is vital and yet the frequency paper retractions among other publication issues is on the rise (Rawat & Meena, 2014).
Authorship
One of the most important yet challenging parts of research is communicating our work to others. As Sir Mark Walport, the UK Chief scientific advisor said in 2013, “Science is not finished until it is communicated” (Yeo, 2013). The main method we use to do this is publishing our work in scientific journals. The number of articles we have authored is one of the most important evaluation metrics for graduate studies, employment and funding (Rawat & Meena, 2014). But how is authorship determined? The criteria to be named an author and the order of authorship varies between journals and fields but at a minimum, an author should have made a significant contribution to the research. This can include contributing towards the experimental design, data collection and analysis among other aspects of research. An author must also agree to take responsibility for a portion of the manuscript, and they must also read and approve of the manuscript in its entirety before publication (Kalichman et al, 2001).
Unethical authorship practices are now rampant within science. Ghost authorship (authors who genuinely contributed to a paper but are not listed as an author), guest or gifted authorship (authorship that is given to a colleague or supervisor who did not contribute enough) sold authorship (authors who bought their way into the by-line) and pressured authorship (legitimate authors pressured to include someone who is not) are a few types of unethical authorship that have become prevalent over recent years (Gureev et al. 2019). Many of these authorship practices stem from the pressure to publish and the need to establish credit or accomplishment. What many fail to understand is that authorship is not just about credit. We tend to view it that way under the publish or perish mindset. But we must remember that when we put our name in the author by-line, we are taking responsibility and ownership of everything contained in that paper (Narejo & Aqil, 2020; Bird & Bell, 2022). This means that if something is wrong with the paper, every author will be investigated for misconduct whether they were at fault or not. Additionally, should a paper need to be retracted due to misconduct, the reputation of all authors is likely to be damaged or questioned.
Publication
Alongside unethical authorship, unethical publication practices are also on the rise. Fragmentary publication (also called divided publication or ‘salami science’) poses a real concern for the efficiency and accuracy of publication. Fragmentary publication is the unethical practice of dividing longer experiments and papers into smaller pieces to be individually published. Not only does this increase the number of publications an author has, but it can speed up the time it takes for review. This practice increases the burden on the publishing and the peer-review processes and expands the amount of published literature (though not necessarily in a beneficial way) (Bennett & Taylor, 2003; Kalichman et al., 2001). Duplicative publications in which authors unethically submit the same paper with limited changes to different journals simultaneously also pose a growing concern. Like fragmentary publication, this practice increases the burden on the publishing process unnecessarily (Kalichman et al. 2001). It should be noted that there are acceptable duplicative publication practices as discussed in Bennett & Taylor (2003).
Other unethical publication practices include plagiarism and self-plagiarism and overciting one’s own research (Chawla, 2024). Finally, the rise in instance of predatory journals also threatens the knowledge base of science with duplicitous practices such as fake peer review and outright theft of intellectual property (Elmore & Weston, 2020).
Peer Review
The peer review process is a keystone of academic science, and a successful peer review is a major milestone for any young scientist. The process is meant to ensure that the work is of sufficient quality to warrant publishing. Peer reviewers are meant to be experts in the field who can judge the methodology, validity of the results and conclusions drawn by the author(s), assess the significance of the work, and evaluate the quality of the writing (Bird & Bell, 2022). Peer review is also supposed to be confidential, and the reviewer should be free of conflicts of interest (COIs). Confidentiality is included in the peer review process to protect the intellectual property of the author. Unless otherwise agreed upon, reviewers are not allowed to share an unpublished manuscript with others or discuss the information it contains (PLOS ONE, n.d.; COPE, 2017). This is important because until a manuscript has been published, the work will not be attributed to the author. While many think all peer review is blind, this is not the case. Authors should understand the kinds of peer review and the type they will be subject to. The three most common types of peer review are single blind, double blind or open, each with their benefits and drawbacks (Wiley, n.d.).
- Single blind – The reviewer knows the identity of the authors. This is beneficial for the reviewer because they can be honest in their feedback without fear of being pressured or otherwise influenced by the author. However, it also means that the reviewer can give harsh feedback and/or delay the publication process if there is a conflict of interest on the topic being published. E.g. the reviewer is intending to publish a similar study.
- Double blind – None of the involved parties know each other’s identities. This type of peer review has the same benefits to the reviewer as the single blind form of peer review, but it also means that the paper is being judged without the influence of the author(s)’ reputation. This does leave the reviewer open to being harsh in their commentary and if the field of interest is small, they may be able to identify the author regardless of anonymity.
- Open peer review – All parties know each other’s identities. This form of peer review is more likely to have polite commentary and because the reviewer’s identity is known, they may be more likely to do a better job. However, this does open the reviewer to intimidation or pressure from the author(s), potentially leading them to fear reprisals based on their feedback (Ali & Watson, 2016; Bird & Bell, 2022; Wiley, n.d.).
Access
An additional ethical consideration is accessibility of information. Who has access to the information? Usually this is reserved for academics, with many journals requiring a subscription to access content beyond the abstracts. This is an obvious barrier for those who are unaffiliated with an institution. In comparison, open access journals charge the author(s) to publish but require no contribution from readers. A final accessibility concern is how we communicate our findings to those outside of the field or scientific sphere. Journal articles are written for specialist audiences. Is that the only relevant audience for your research? How are people supposed to educate themselves if we bog down our research with jargon? Overall, science needs to improve its ability to communicate, especially with the public and those who are not involved in STEM.
8.2 Example: Paper mills
In recent years, retractions in scientific journals have skyrocketed. Between 2009 and 2019, the company Hindawi (owned by Wiley journals) retracted an average of 26 papers a year. In 2023, they retracted more than 8,000 (Eliesbik, 2023; Kincaid, 2023). Over 200 journals owned by Hindawi were affected, all of which have since been directly incorporated into Wiley’s portfolio. Most of the retractions made were identified as papers created by paper mills. These organizations publish papers in two ways; they either dupe legitimate editors into accepting fake papers, which are usually made with templates or by instructing authors to recommend peer-reviewers who are part of the paper mill itself. Special issues of journals are frequently targeted by paper mills because they generally have faster review times and more approvals than regular issues. Additionally, special issues are often managed by guest editors making it easier to insert an editor who is part of the paper mill using fake or stolen identities and email addresses (Bishop, 2023).
Paper mills are a result of the publish or perish culture embedded in science which pressures scientists into behaving unethically during their research and publishing processes. Journals and scientists alike must be careful to ensure that papers of interest are legitimate. In the instance of Hindawi, some of the retractions were made due to glaring issues. Using criteria established by Kincaid (2023), can help explore reasons for retraction uncovered investigation of Hindawi papers (Eliesbeck, 2023) :
- There were discrepancies in the scope of the study. E.g. papers were published in the journal of nanomaterials with no discussion of nano technology (Eliesbeck, 2023).
- Discrepancies in the description of reported data were identified. E.g. research experiments on myocardial ischemia (a condition that can lead to heart attacks) were described, but the reported data only consisted of healthy patients (Eliesbeck, 2023).
- The availability of the data and described research was inconsistent. E.g. papers were found with statements such as “no data was used to support this study” (Eliesbeck, 2023).
- The citations were inappropriate. E.g. a paper studying the treatment of acne was referencing papers about strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization (Eliesbeck, 2023).
- There was incoherent, meaningless or irrelevant content.
- Peer review was compromised (Kincaid, 2023).
In total, the investigation and retractions from the Hindawi journals cost Wiley between $35-40 million. What is more concerning is the severity of the paper mill problem, which is contributing to the pollution of scientific knowledge by increasing the amount of made-up material masquerading as legitimate research (Kincaid, 2023; McKie, 2024). The problems created by paper mills persist and will continue to persist without significant changes to scientific culture, training for editors and increased scrutiny during the publication process.
8.3 Practice Questions
- Selecting papers and citations
You are doing a research project on miRNA mediated autophagy and its possible applications in the treatment of cancers. Many of the papers you read use cell lines, but some have progressed to animal trials.
2. Authorship and peer review
You were asked to peer-review a paper submitted to the Journal of Genetics. Upon reading the abstract, you are concerned that you do not have the expert knowledge required to review this paper. You also notice the authors are from a lab competing with your own for grants. After some thought, you decide to send the manuscript to your supervisor to ask them if they think you should review the paper.
Though the perception is that peer review is always blind, there are in fact three common types of peer review; open where all parties know identification, single blind where the reviewer knows the identity of the author and double blind where all identification is confidential.
3. Authorship
You have begun working in a genomics lab. With the help of your supervisor, you are working on a complicated project. When you began the project, it was determined that you would be the first author on the paper, followed by the supervisor. During the experiment, you discuss your work with Max, an acquaintance from another lab. Max shared some of his thoughts and gave you helpful tips to make your statistical analysis run more smoothly. Your experiment revealed novel information, and your supervisor suggests that you submit it to a high impact journal. Being an author on this paper will significantly improve your chances of obtaining more funding. When Max hears of these developments through the grapevine, he contacts you and requests to be named on the paper as a co-author. He feels that his commentary enabled you to complete the project. You disagree and say that he didn’t do enough to be considered an author but will be mentioned in the acknowledgements.
