Research Ethics

MODULE V
Sunita Rattan
Dean Science & Technology
Director, Amity Institute of Applied Sciences
Module V : Publication Misconduct

• Subject specific ethical issues, Fabrication, Falsification, or

Plagiarism (FFP), authorship
• Conflicts of interest
• Complaints and appeals: examples and fraud from India and
abroad
• Use of plagiarism software like Turnitin, Drillbit and other open
source software tools

2
 SESSION 20

Group Discussion on Subject Specific Ethical

Issues

Fabrication

Falsification or

Plagiarism (FFP)

Authorship
 Imagine This…

• A historian finds ‘lost diaries’

• A journalist reports from nowhere

• A novel copied from others

Would you believe them?

Case: Fake Hitler
Diaries (1983)
• The fake Hitler Diaries (1983) were a
sensational forgery created by West
German forger Konrad Kujau,
• comprising 60+ notebooks
purporting to be Hitler's private
journals from 1932 to 1945.
• The diaries had Nazi seals and the
writing was in Hitler’s style.
• Bought by Stern magazine for 9.3
million Deutsche Marks ($3.7M) and
• published in April 1983, they were
exposed as fakes within weeks through
forensic analysis
Jayson Blair Jayson Thomas Blair (born March 23, 1976) is an
American former journalist who worked for The New York
Times.

Fabricated news He had copied passages from other publications, conjured

reports up fake quotations and lied repeatedly to cover up his
misdeeds.

In May 2003, he resigned from the newspaper following

the revelation of fabrication and plagiarism within his
Fake interviews articles.

Impact: Media
credibility loss
David Irving: Distorted Holocaust evidence
• The Holocaust—the systematic killing of about six
million Jews by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945—is
the most documented genocide in history
• Manipulating Documents: Irving willfully misled
readers by omitting key phrases or altering
documents to downplay Nazi guilt. For instance, he
used a Nazi-forged document to falsely inflate
casualties in Dresden.
• Auschwitz Gas Chambers: Irving targeted the
evidence for gas chambers, claiming they were air
raid shelters or for sanitation. He could prove his
theory that the Holocaust was a fabrication.
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
“Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.”

Fabrication

Falsification
The measure of a man's character is what
he would do if he knew he never would be
Plagiarism found out.
-Thomas Babington Macaulay

Other Research Misconduct

 What is FFP?

Fabrication – Falsification Plagiarism –

Making up – Twisting Stealing
facts facts ideas
Ethics?
Ethics is defined as correct behavior dictated internally by one’s own
moral integrity.

Guidelines are the norms for correct behavior laid down but not
forced, and

Law is the correct behavior governed externally or enforced by state.

“Ethics is knowing the difference
between what you have a right to
do and, what is right to do”.
– Potter Stewart

11
What is Publication
Misconduct?
• Any unethical behavior in the process of writing,
submitting, reviewing, or publishing research work.
• Violates academic integrity and undermines trust in
scientific communication.
• Often involves deliberate deception for academic or
professional gain.
 The origins of
scientific publishing
• The publication "Gutenberg Bible," a key landmark in the history of
printing, was published in Mainz, Germany, around 1439 by Johannes
Gutenberg and his partner, Johann
• Fust. This book, a Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, marked the
beginning of the mass production of books using movable type.
• The history of the famous Dutch Elsevier press began in the 16th
century, in 1580, the Dutchman Lowys Elsevier (1583-1652)
founded the House of Elzevir, a printing and publishing company..
Nice and simple font for the small size publications, developed in
their printing shop and called Elsevier, has been applied up to the
present time.
• The modern Elsevier company was established in 1880 by the Dutch
bookseller Jacob George Robbers, Like the Elseviers, he also wanted
to publish classics for those who are interested in them. In addition to
the name, he adopted the original Elzevir printer’s mark, stamping his
new products with it.
• Henry Oldenburg (also Henry Oldenbourg) FRS was
a German theologian, diplomat, and natural philosopher, known as
one of the creators of modern scientific peer review.
Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Research and
Evaluation in Development
Ethical publishing-Peer Reviewed Journals
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal
is an essential building block in the development of a
coherent and respected network of knowledge.

It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the author

and the institutions that support them.

Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the

scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon
standards of expected ethical behavior.
Top 5 reasons to publish ethically
What is Publication Misconduct?
Publication is the process by which a researcher publish his work in a journal, a book or a
magazine to bring recognition of his work.

But when the researchers violates the ethical requirements, misconduct occur.

• Fabrication
• Falsification
• Plagiarism
• Inappropriate Authorship
• Duplicate Submission
• Multiple Submissions
• Overlapping Publication
• Segmented Publication-Salami Slicing
17
Fabrication:

Fabrication is the practice of making up data or results without

having performed relevant research.
Fabrication is defined as "making up results and recording them as
if they were real". It is the act of making up data and reporting the
made up data as a true reflection of never conducted research
study(Martyn, 2003). Data fabrication are undertaken by immoral
and moral individuals(Gerrets,2016).

Gerrets, R. (2016). Morals, Morale, and Motivations in Data Fabrication: Medical Research Fieldworkers'
Views and Practices in Two Sub-Saharan African Contexts. Social Science & Medicine 166(October), 150-
159.
 Falsification
Falsification is the practice of changing data or results
intentionally such that misleading conclusion is drawn.
Falsification is the changing or omission of research data to present
an incorrect result (Martyn,2003). In this way the data is
manipulated and a false impression is created. According to Irving
Hexham "Falsifying is the deliberate undertaking to deceive the
pursuer through the designation and depiction as one's own work"

Martyn, C. (2003). Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism. An International Journal of Medicine,

96(4), 243-244.
Plagiarism:
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data,
figures, research methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or
the over- citation of another person's published work.

Plagiarism is one of the most dangerous misconducts in research.

" Plagiarism is the appropriation of other people's material without giving

proper credit"(the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity).

"Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas processes,

results or words without giving appropriate credit."(US Federal Policy on
Research Misconduct).
7
New Delhi Publisher
Types of Publication Misconduct

There are different types of plagiarism :

• Direct/Deliberate plagiarism in which a portion of someone's writing is copied word by

word.

• Self Plagiarism in which the researcher presents his or her own previously published data.

• Mosaic Plagiarism in which a student uses someone's writing without quotation marks.

• Accidental Plagiarism in which the researchers does not cite their sources or even
misquotes without giving proper attribution.
Key Points
It should be understood that something being freely available on the internet does not mean
that it can be copied as such.
Plagiarism is the adoption of another person’s ideas,
The authors must be aware of the issue of data/idea plagiarism and its
consequences.

Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) in a manuscript is unethical and illegal. If any

information is derived from the web e.g. Wikipedia, where the details on authorship may
not be available, due reference to the link should be provided.

For the use of other’s data, due permission from the copyright holder needs to be taken in
writing and this should be preserved.

ETHICS in Science Education, 28

Research and Governance
Publication Misconduct-FFP

• 1) Fabrication = making up data and recording them

• 2) Falsification = manipulating materials/processes or changing/omitting data,
such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record
• 3) Plagiarism = appropriating ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit
• Research misconduct = any one of these three… while proposing, performing,
reviewing, or reporting research.

• It is NOT honest error or differences of scientific opinion.

Inappropriate Authorship

Authorship is not appropriately assigned based on the

contributions
Authorship
While there is no universal definition of authorship, an “author” is generally considered to be
an individual who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the study.

Naming authors on a scientific paper ensures that the appropriate individuals get credit, and
are accountable, for the research.

Deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's relationship to their work is considered to be a form

of misconduct that undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). How to
handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. 2003. Available at:
[Link] Accessed on June 17, 2017.
 Non-Author Contributors
• Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be
listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged.

• Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor
for authorship are:
• acquisition of funding;
• general supervision of a research group or
• general administrative support;
• and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.

• Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or

together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Participating Investigators"), and their
contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed
the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated
in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

• Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a

study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding
author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.
 Undesirable Authorships:
Some other types of authorship like guest authorship, honorary or gift authorship,
anonymous authorship, surrogate authorship and ghost authorship are grossly
unethical, and therefore, unacceptable.

– "Ghost" authors, who contribute substantially but are not

acknowledged (often paid by commercial sponsors);

– "Guest" authors, who make no discernible contributions, but are listed to

help increase the chances of publication;

– "Gift" authors, whose contribution is based solely on a tenuous

affiliation with a study
43
Research and Publication EthicsName
(RPE)
of Institution

11
 General Guidelines
The following are some general guidelines, which may vary from field to field:,

– The order of authorship should be "a joint decision of the coauthors".

– Individuals who are involved in a study but don't satisfy the journal's criteria for
authorship, should be listed as "Contributors" or "Acknowledged Individuals".

– Examples include: assisting the research by providing advice, providing research

space, departmental oversight, and obtaining financial support.

– For large, multi-center trials, the list of clinicians and centers is typically published,
along with a statement of the individual contributions made.

– Some groups list authors alphabetically, sometimes with a note to explain that all
authors made equal contributions to the study and the publication.
Responsibility of Authors and Contributors:

When a book, research article or other category of research output is authored by one person,
it is implicit that all the research work related to that publication was essentially carried out by
that person, and he/she bears all responsibilities.

In multi-authored publications, however, it becomes necessary to clearly identify contributions of

each author so that their responsibilities can be defined. In such publications, all the authors,
however, have following collective responsibilities.

• To be accountable for all aspects of the work to ensure that questions related to
the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and
resolved
• Final approval of the version to be published
• Each author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for which
specific part of the work

ETHICS in Science Education, 10

Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors
Originality: The authors should provide a statement corroborating to the
originality of the study they have submitted for consideration. It is not unusual for
some journals to request the authors to provide copies of reports on other studies
(unpublished articles, manuscripts, and abstracts) related to the study
under consideration.

Good Record-keeping and Maintenance of Data: It is mandatory that researchers

maintain daily log-books to record every day’s work and results. Errors due to
carelessness and negligence should be avoided. The results, with any substantiating
image or data outputs, must be maintained for a reasonable period of time even after
the data have been published so that any subsequent queries/doubts etc can be
satisfactorily.

ETHICS in Science Education, 51

Research and Governance
 Name of Institution

Page from a laboratory notebook of Alexander

Graham Bell, 1876
 Elizabeth H.
Blackburn
The Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine
2009
Responsibilities of Authors

Honesty, Objectivity and Integrity: Authors must follow honesty, objectivity

and integrity and avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data
interpretation, and reporting data, results, methods and procedures in all
scientific communications.

Fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data is plainly unethical and

should not be resorted to.

Trimming outliers from a data set without providing reasons or using an

unsuitable statistical technique to enhance the significance of results is unethical
and not permitted.

ETHICS in Science Education, 54

Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors
Conflict of Interest: Authors should disclose any conflict of interest
(personal or financial) that may affect research. Researchers
should also avoid bias in peer review, personnel decisions, grant
writing, grant approval and other aspects of research.

Openness: The authors should be willing to share data, results, ideas,

tools, and resources, especially after publication.

ETHICS in Science Education, 55

Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors

Respect for Intellectual Property: It is the authors’ responsibility to

honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. When privy to
someone else’s unpublished data/research plans (as a reviewer, editor or a visitor to a
lab or member of audience at a lecture, etc.), one should not use the privileged or
confidential information and/or ideas for one’s own work without prior permission
since this is ‘idea plagiarism’.

It is unethical to use unpublished data, methods, or results of others without

permission. Due credit should be given wherever required. Literature review should
acknowledge relevant prior contributions of other people in the field.
ETHICS in Science Education, 56
Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors

Copyright Agreement: While publishing an article, authors are usually required to

assign copyright to the journal publishing their study.

Assignment of copyright is a legal document in which the authors assign certain rights to
the publisher.

Generally, these agreements allow the authors to retain certain rights to the
material.

Authors must carefully read and understand the copyright agreement document.
The content for which a copyright agreement is being signed must be original and
not under copyright elsewhere. Authors should ensure that the study under consideration
since the original source may already be ‘owned’ by someone.
is original and does not contain plagiarized content
ETHICS in Science Education, 21
Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors
Disclosures: It is mandatory for authors to be honest and objective when complying
with journal submission requirements. This entails disclosures about the originality
of the content, each author’s actual contribution to the study. Financial support and
conflict of interest should be disclosed correctly.

Consent for Reuse of Published Material: Authors sometime may

need to reuse data and/or images previously published by themselves or others. Depending
upon the copyright conditions of such material, they may need to seek formal consent of
the publisher and/or original authors; in those cases which are not held under copyright,
reuse

may not need any formal permission.

ETHICS in Science Education, 22
Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors

Confidentiality: All communication between authors and the

journal is to be treated as confidential.

The identified corresponding author is the specific contact for all

communication about the manuscript throughout peer review and
the publication process. Authors should observe journal policy on
communication with external peer reviewers.

ETHICS in Science Education, 59

Research and Governance
Responsibilities of Authors

Responsible Publication: The primary objective of a research publication

is to share the new knowledge with others to advance scholarship, rather than to just
advance an individual’s career. Therefore, anything that is published implies
responsibility on part of author/s.

Public Announcement of New Results: A work which is submitted and

accepted for publication should generally be not announced in general public till its
formal publication. The norms defined by the given journal for the purpose should be
followed.

ETHICS in Science Education, 60

Research and Governance
AUTHORSHIP DISPUTES
When not appropriately addressed, authorship issues can
lead to dispute. Some disputes are based on misconduct
(such as lying about one's role); some stem from questions of
interpretation, such as the degree to which a person's
contribution can be considered "substantial," and if authorship
is justified.

Other potential issues could include: being involved in a study,

but not listed as an author or contributor; someone taking your
idea and publishing a paper claiming full authorship; and
finding your name on a publication without your permission.
If a complaint is filed over a dispute, an investigation may be conducted with
the journal editor and author's institution to reach a resolution. Because of the
potential for ambiguity and confused expectations, it is strongly advised that
before the research begins, a meeting take place to document how each
person will be acknowledged.

Issues around authorship can be complex and sensitive. Early career

researchers who encounter such situations may fear they will jeopardize their
reputation and career if they speak up.

Take the time to fully understand each journal's guidelines for authorship, and
industry requirements.

If you find yourself in a challenging situation that you are not sure how to
handle, consult with a trusted mentor or supervisor.
Guide to Authorship Disputes and How to
Prevent Them
Guide to Authorship Disputes and How to Prevent Them
Duplicate Submissions/Multiple Submissions

• Practice of submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts

with minor differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract,
author order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two or more
journals at the same time, or submitting to another journal within an
agreed or stipulated period
Overlapping Publications/Segmented
Publications
• Overlapping publication: Overlapping publication refers to the
practice of publishing a paper overlaps substantially with one already
published.

• Segmented publication : Segmented publication refers to the practice

of slicing data from a large study could have been reported in a single
paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or more articles, all of
which cover the same population, methods, and question.
Salami Slicing/ Salami Slicing: Sometimes the researcher wants to
enhance their publication number. As a result they
divide the data set. It would have been a meaningful
Redundant paper with the whole data but due to splitting
different papers have been formed. It affects the
Publications importance of the data. This is called the salami
publication or salami slicing.

Redundant Publication: It is the publication of a

paper which is similar to a published paper by the
same author. He does this without acknowledging the
source. It is an example of 'poor scholarship' and the
study contributes very less. It is turned to be a
wastage to the editor and reviewer in every way.
References

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). How to handle authorship
disputes: a guide for new researchers. 2003. Available at: [Link]/files/[Link]. Accessed on
June 17, 2017.
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Authorship and Contributorship.
Available at: [Link]/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-
[Link]. Accessed on June 17, 2017.
3. Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting
Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. 3rd Revised Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO: 2012. Available at:
councilscienceeditors. org/wp- content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf. Accessed on June 17, 2017.
4. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) policy statement on ghost writing initiated by commercial companies.
Available at: [Link]/policy-statements#Ghost Writing - ghost. Accessed on June 17, 2017.
5. Jacobs A, Wager E. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) Guidelines on the role of medical writers in
developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:317- 321. Available at:
[Link]/Mum/[Link]. Accessed on June 17, 2017.
6. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP Joint Position Statement on the Role of Professional Medical Writers. Available at:
[Link]/sites/ [Link]/resource/resmgr/about_amwa/[Link]. Accessed on
June 17, 2017.
EXAMPLES
Name of Institution
Research and Publication EthicsName
(RPE)
of Institution
Research and Publication EthicsName
(RPE)
of Institution
Research and Publication EthicsName
(RPE)
of Institution
Research and Publication EthicsName
(RPE)
of Institution
Name of Institution
Name of Institution
When Kevin Wagner at the University of Arizona and colgues published a paper in
Science about their discovery of a new planet in 2016, it captured the attention of
a lot of science writers.

Finding the object – HD 131399 – meant that “astronomers have discovered a planet
with an even more exotic sight on its horizon: a triple sunset,” in the words of The
New York Times.
 Early Cases
Eric T. Poehlman
Eli Kintisch, “Poehlman Sentenced
• Longitudinal Menopause Study (1995) to 1 Year of Prison” (2006) Science

• 10 papers, 17 grant applications (1992-2002)

• Retractions, $180K fine, debarment (2005)
• Sentenced to prison (2006)

Poehlman was most famous for the Longitudinal Menopause Study because
following subjects for so long is so difficult. It turns out that only 2 of his 30+
subjects’ data hadn’t been falsified in some way. Some were invented out of
whole cloth. Almost all had fabricated datapoints. Many had falsified metadata.
 Andrew Wakefield's MMR Vaccine Fraud (1998)
Misconduct: Falsification and unethical practices.
Details: Wakefield published a study in The Lancet falsely linking the MMR
vaccine to autism. The study involved undisclosed financial conflicts and
manipulated data.

Nick Allen, “MMR-autism link

doctor Andrew Wakefield defends
conduct at GMC hearing” (2008)
The Telegraph
Wakefield was hired by a lawyer -- who wanted to file a class
action lawsuit against the makers of the MMR vaccine -- two years
before the Lancet article was published.
He lied about numbers of kids in the study, and altered their data,
e.g., onset of symptoms reported as abrupt and within a week of
vaccination, when in reality onset was slow and/or started well in
advance of vaccination or long afterwards.
•Reference:
•The Lancet retracted the paper in 2010
•Brian Deer’s investigations: [Link]
Diederik Stapel's Social Psychology Fraud (2011)

Misconduct: Fabrication of dozens of psychology studies.

Details: Stapel, a Dutch psychologist, made up data in more than 50 publications.

Impact:
• Misled psychological research and theory.
• Damaged public trust in social science.

• Reference:
• Levelt Committee Report (2012).
• NYTimes coverage
Research and Publication Ethics (RPE)
Name of Institution

Write at least 5 questions

related to
Publication Misconduct in
your own Domain

83
THANK YOU
SESSION 21

Conflict of
Interest
Conflicts of • When an investigator, author, editor, or
reviewer has a financial/personal
interest or belief that could affect
interest his/her objectivity, or inappropriately
influence his/her actions, a potential
competing interest exists.

• Such relationships are also known as

dual commitments, conflict of interest,
or competing loyalties.
Conflict of Interest

• A situation where personal, financial, or professional interests could bias

research.
• Can be real, perceived, or potential.
Example

• Financial ties to benefiting companies.

• Personal relationships affecting objectivity.
• Competition for academic recognition.
• Dual editorial and author roles.
Conflicts of Interest (CoI)

• The potential for conflict of interest and bias exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such
as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain).

• Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.

• Individuals may disagree on whether an author’s relationships or activities represent conflicts. Although the
presence of a relationship or activity does not always indicate a problematic influence on a paper’s content,
perceptions of conflict may erode trust in science as much as actual conflicts of interest.

• These judgments require transparent disclosures. An author’s complete disclosure demonstrates a

commitment to transparency and helps to maintain trust in the scientific process.
Conflicts of Interest

• Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria,

patents, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable.

• Other interests may also represent or be perceived as conflicts, such as personal relationships or
rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs.

• Authors should avoid entering into agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that
interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and
interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose.

• Policies that dictate where authors may publish their work violate this principle of academic freedom.
Authors may be required to provide the journal with the agreements in confidence.
What is to be done: Conflicts of Interest

If unsure, declare a potential interest or discuss with

the editorial office.

Undeclared interests may incur sanctions.

Submissions with undeclared conflicts that are later
revealed may be rejected.

Published articles may need to be re-assessed, have

a corrigendum published, or in serious cases be
retracted
 Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or
prevent someone from being involved in the review process.
However, they must be declared.

A clear declaration of all possible conflicts – whether they actually

had an influence or not – allows others to make informed decisions
about the work and its review process.

If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be

embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and the journal. It may be
necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process.
COI and Authors Authors must declare all potential
interests in a ‘Conflicts of interest’
section, which should explain why
the interest may be a conflict.

If there are none, the authors should

state “The author(s) declare(s) that
there are no conflicts of interest
regarding the publication of this
paper.”

Submitting authors are responsible

for coauthors declaring their
interests.
COI and Authors
Authors must declare current or recent funding (including article
processing charges) and other payments, goods or services that might
influence the work. All funding, whether a conflict or not, must be
declared in the ‘Funding Statement’.

The involvement of anyone other than the authors who

1) has an interest in the outcome of the work; 2) is affiliated to an
organization with such an interest; or 3) was employed or paid by a
funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design, conduct, or
analysis of the work, the preparation or editing of the manuscript, or the
decision to publish must be declared.

Declared conflicts of interest are considered by the editor and reviewers

and included in the published article.
 For Editors
• Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission
when they
• Have a recent publication or current
submission with any author
• Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author
• Collaborate or recently collaborated with any author
• Have a close personal connection to any
author
• Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
• Feel unable to be objective
• Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of
the review form, which will be considered by the editor.
• Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the
manuscript with the authors.
COI and Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they

• Have a recent publication or current submission with any author

• Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author
• Collaborate or recently collaborated with any author
• Have a close personal connection to any author
• Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
• Feel unable to be objective
Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.

Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors
Consequences of Non-Disclosure

• - Retraction of papers.
• - Damaged professional reputation.
• - Loss of public trust.
• - Legal or ethical sanctions.
 Case Study 1: The Vioxx Scandal
Fabrication / Falsification / Misrepresentation
•Selective reporting of data
•Downplaying negative outcomes

Scientific Issue
•Vioxx selectively inhibited COX-2 enzyme
•But this caused:
• Increased risk of blood clots
• Leading to heart attacks & strokes
Scale of Impact
•Estimated: 60,000+ deaths worldwide (some
estimates higher)
•Millions of patients exposed •A painkiller (NSAID) developed by Merck & Co.
One of the largest drug safety failures in •Approved in 1999
history •Used for: Arthritis , Acute pain
•Marketed as safer for the stomach than traditional NSAIDs
 Case Study 2: The Coca-Cola Controversy

•High sugar content in soft drinks

•Link to:
• Obesity
• Type 2 Diabetes
•Allegations of:
• Influencing scientific research
• Shaping public perception
Ethical Issues (FFP Lens) • - Coca-Cola funded research downplaying sugary
Falsification / Misrepresentation drink risks.
•Selective interpretation of data • - Researchers failed to disclose funding.
Conflict of Interest
• - Result: Academic backlash, credibility loss.
•Industry-funded research influencing conclusions
Public Misinformation
•Marketing vs scientific evidence gap
Best Practices for Researchers

• - Broadly identify potential conflicts.

• - Always disclose when unsure.
• - Follow COI policies.
• - Foster ethical research culture.
Conclusion

• - COI is about transparency, not blame.

• - Ethical disclosure strengthens research.
• - Transparency maintains public trust.
References

• - COPE Guidelines
• - ICMJE Recommendations
• - Reuters: Vioxx Settlement
• - NYT: Coca-Cola & Obesity Research
The Never Ending Debate on Sci-Hub: Balancing access, ethics, and sustainability in scholarly
publishing

Sci-Hub, often described as

the ‘Robin Hood of research,’
is a scholarly piracy website
allowing users to access
millions of academic papers
that are often blocked behind
the paywall. With an average
of over 400,000
downloads daily on an
average, this platform has
undeniably shaken the
landscape of scholarly
publishing.
Every fabricated number, every falsified graph,
and every plagiarized idea doesn’t just break a
rule—it breaks the foundation of trust on which
research stands.

THANK YOU