Unfair practices in the publication process

Sergei V. Jargin
Summary
Unfair practices in the publication process committed by authors (plagiarism, misquoting, ghost
or honorary authorship, hidden conflicts of interest, etc.) are well known. Less frequently
discussed are misdemeanors on the part of the editors. Among other things, the editor should
select unbiased reviewers and assure selection of manuscripts for publication based solely on
scientific quality. Confidentiality must be maintained throughout the review process. Violations
of these rules sometimes occur but are difficult to prove. The simplest example is a delay of the
decision to publish or not. Certainly, it can be always objected that a review process needs time;
besides, the responsibility may be with a reviewer delaying submission of a comment (reviewer
tardiness). In the authors opinion, considerable delay of a decision on manuscripts of potential
significance for science or public health can be regarded as a justification of a second submission
of the same material. Formally, the first submission must be withdrawn, but it can be a
suboptimal solution if the goals are rapid publication and maximum resonance for the benefit of
public health and medical research. Another problem is the copyediting of accepted manuscripts.
In some cases the copyediting distorts original meaning, and may discredit the author and/or the
message of his article. Several examples are discussed. Finally, publication of unserious
materials in congress proceedings should be mentioned. In conclusion, unfair practices by some
editors can be not only harmful for research and practice but also undermine international trust.
Key words: scientific misconduct; publication; peer review

Unfair practices in the publication process committed by authors (plagiarism, misquoting, ghost
or honorary authorship, hidden conflicts of interest, duplicate publication/submissions etc.) are
well known [1,2]. Less frequently discussed is overt or disguised misconduct on the part of the
editors. Among other things, the editor should select unbiased reviewers and assure selection of
manuscripts for publication based solely on scientific quality. Confidentiality must be
maintained throughout the review process [3]. Violations of these rules sometimes occur [4,5]
but are difficult to prove. The simplest example is a delay of the decision to publish or not [6].
Sometimes the article is unexpectedly published after a year or more [e.g., 7]. Certainly, it can be
always objected that a review process needs time; besides, the responsibility may be with a
reviewer delaying submission of a comment (reviewer tardiness) [8], or with the author of an
article, who delays a reply to a commenting letter. For example, letters with references to the
1

articles [9-11] have been submitted some time ago; as all of them seem to be topical, arguments
from these letters were recently published in [12-14]. In the authors opinion, considerable delay
of a decision on manuscripts of potential significance for science or public health can be
regarded as a justification of a second submission of the same material. Formally, the first
submission must be withdrawn, but it can be a suboptimal solution if the goals are rapid
publication and maximum resonance for the benefit of public health and medical research.
Another problem is the copyediting of accepted manuscripts. Admittedly, the copyediting may
improve the grammar and style. However, in some cases the copyediting distorts original
meaning, and may discredit the author and/or the message of his article. There are also overt
violations such as distortion of references or text alterations resulting in wrong statements or
absurdum. How should the author react? If an accidental error appears probable, the matter can
be discussed per e-mail and corrections made. If there are reasons to suspect unscrupulousness, a
discussion might be both embarrassing and useless. Sometimes corrections are made but other
text passages or references are concomitantly altered. The motives are not always clear.
Sometimes it can be surmised that auxiliary personnel, poorly controlled by the editors, is acting
in accordance with the interests of a third party in order to discredit the author, to impart
awkwardness [15] or even to make the author formally responsible for wrong statements or
citation [16]. In some cases, when the proof had not been sent to the author, it is difficult to
determine retrospectively, whether mistakes had been made by the author or by the copyediting
[17]. In the chapter [17], the authors name was misspelled on the title page and running head
(Example 1). Hardly acceptable copyediting was performed also in the article [18]; corrections
have been made thereafter. As mentioned above, among the goals of a publication can be
benefits of the healthcare or medical science. In such cases, seeking to publish important
contents, the author may see no alternative as to agree to a distorted publication, or to make only
essential corrections disregarding awkwardness of the copyedited text [13]. Finally, publication
of unserious materials in congress proceedings should be mentioned; more details are in [5,19].
In conclusion, unfair practices by some editors can be not only harmful for research and practice
but also undermine international trust.
Example 1.
The title page of the chapter [17] with the misspelled authors name, followed by an Erratum
published on the ResearchGate.

Example 2
The article [20] was changed by the copyediting, some sentences having become awkward or
senseless. The erratum (below) was submitted. However, further cooperation with the Journal
was excellent, and the last article has been published correctly [21].
3

ERRATUM
The following corrections should be made in the article [20] according to the accepted
manuscript. Besides, a reference to an illustration was left in the text but the image was not
published.
It is written:
1. Consumption of surrogates was indirectly stimulated with certain anti-alcohol measurements
taken by government Soviet-time, sorts of cheap fortified wine, was largely disappeared during
the 1990s; however wine surrogates were continuously sold out.
2. Authorities should take measurements to prevent the sales of poor-quality and counterfeit
alcoholic beverages.
3. As a result, many workers, finished their work around 5 pm., considering queues at shops to
drink a dose of vodka (often still at the workplace) but continued with fortified wine or beer.
4. Base on my research on pathology in Russia and abroad, pulmonary diseases (chronic
exacerbating bronchitis, pneumonia etc.) have been a more frequent reason for death of alcohol
abusers in Russia, which partly explained with climate and lesser availability of warm public
houses, especially for working class and pauper drinkers; some of them did not live long enough
to die from liver cirrhosis.
Should be:
1. Consumption of the surrogates was indirectly stimulated by certain anti-alcohol measures
taken by the government. Apparently, there is a tendency to veil these facts in some publications
from Russia, stressing harmful properties of vodka as opposed to wine. Soviet-time sorts of
cheap fortified wine have largely disappeared during the 1990s; but wine surrogates continue to
be sold.
2. Authorities should take measures to prevent the sales of poor-quality and counterfeit alcoholic
beverages.
3. As a result, many workers, finishing their work around 5 p.m., considering queues at the
shops, could have drunk a dose of vodka (often still at the workplace) but continued with
fortified wine or beer.
4. According to my experience after practice of pathology both in Russia and abroad, pulmonary
diseases (chronic exacerbating bronchitis, pneumonia etc.) have been a more frequent cause of
death of alcohol abusers in Russia, which can be partly explained by the climate and lesser
4

availability of warm public houses, especially for working class and pauper drinkers; some of
them did not live long enough to die from liver cirrhosis.
Example 3
Captions to the illustrations in [2], being verbally correct, have been confused by the
copyediting. The erratum was submitted but has not been published. The erratum has been
published on the ResearchGate.
ERRATUM
Captions to the illustrations in the attached full text pdf, being verbally correct, are mixed up in
the article. The following is correct: An erratum was submitted but not published. All the images
mentioned below are available online in the article [2].
1. The whole section on follicular thyroid carcinoma is presented on this page from the manual
[22]. The most important diagnostic criteria of follicular carcinoma capsular and vascular
invasions are not mentioned at all. On the basis of this description no reliable differential
diagnosis between follicular thyroid carcinoma and adenoma can be made.
2. Report to the Dean of the Medical Faculty of Peoples Friendship University of Russia.
Translation:
Upper left corner: Registered 3.06.98; signature of the Secretary at the Deans office.
To the Dean of the Medical Faculty of Peoples Friendship University of Russia professor V.A.
Frolov from the lecturer of the Department of Pathological Anatomy Jargin S.V.
Dear Victor Alekseevich,
It was my duty to inform you about disagreement in our department in regard to computer testing
of students.
The multiple-choice questions for computer testing (enclosed) contain outdated information,
numerous errors and inexactitudes. At least a half of the questions should be replaced or
corrected. In the process of preparation of this edition, some questions that I have compiled were
changed without informing me, which additionally enhanced the number of inexactitudes. A
great part of outdated or wrong information originates from the last edition of the textbook by
A.I. Strukov and V.V. Serov Pathological anatomy.
The students notice the errors and make remarks to me and other lecturers. At the same time, the
Head of the Department insists on obligatory testing of students using these multiple-choice
questions. During a lecture, he recommended to learn the questions with the errors.
5

This issue I repeatedly discussed with the Head of the Department and the Head of Studies.
Herewith I ask for your permission to abolish obligatory computer testing of the students in
pathological anatomy until the multiple choice questions will be prepared in accordance with
modern knowledge.
With gratitude,
Jargin S.V.
03.06.1998
Enclosure: edition of the test [23]. Questions, containing errors, inexactitudes and incorrect
formulations, are marked in the text.
3. Table 1 from the article [24].
4. Fig. 711 from the manual [22].
Translation of the legend: Papillary carcinoma
a. cystic clefts are formed between branching papillae (90);
b. papillae with strong fibrous stalks, covered by blast cells (120);
c. glandular and papillary structures within the blastic stroma (120)
Comment: The illustrations are not characteristic for papillary thyroid carcinoma. Ground-glass
nuclei and other typical nuclear changes are not recognizable. The image in c can have
originated from a regressively changed goiter.
5. Text fragment from the section Thyroid Carcinoma, p. 402, from the atlas [25]. Translation
and comment are in the text.
6. Tests in pathological anatomy [23]. The multiple-choice questions from this edition have been
used for testing students at the Peoples Friendship University of Russia. Many tests are
formulated incorrectly and contain outdated or wrong information.

Esample 4
The article [13] was changed by the copyediting. Compare e.g. References #48,66,68 in three
article versions below after consecutive corrections. Fragments of e-mail correspondence are
presented below. In the end, all necessary corrections have been made; the author is sincerely
grateful to the Editors. Today, the article is published completely correct.
6

Example 5.
Article in Russian language [26]. The authors name was misprinted on the contents pages both
in English and in Russian languages. Besides, a mistake was made in the caption to the
8

illustration (XIX instead of the XX century). The erratum was submitted but has not been
published.
The corrected version of the article has been published on the Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273145833_Pocemu_iscezli_kreplenye_vina_Why_the
_Fortified_Wines_are_Disappeared

Example 6.
Some open access journals having publication charges provide to the authors per e-mail
complete waivers but later ask for payment. Fragments from correspondence are illustrated
below.

10

Example 7.
Correspondence re: Distorted authors names in an online publication.

References
1. Wallace MB, Siersema PD. Ethics in publication. Endoscopy 2015;47:575-8.
2. Jargin SV. Pathology in the former Soviet Union: scientific misconduct and related
phenomena. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2011;1:75-81.
3. Cowell HR. Ethical responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2000;(378):83-9.
4. Rennie D. Let's make peer review scientific. Nature. 2016;535(7610):31-3.
5. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud-hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med.
2015;373(25):2393-5.
6. Jargin SV. About duplicate publications. What should the author do if the editor doesnt
answer? Ukr Med J 2009;71(3). (in Russian)
7. Jargin SV. Cell culture as a testing system for anti-atherogenic substances: a brief
communication. Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia 2008;50(3):237-240.
11

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275660114_Cell_culture_as_a_testing_system_for_ant
i-atherogenic_substances_a_brief_communication
8. Babalola O, Grant-Kels JM, Parish LC. Ethical dilemmas in journal publication. Clin
Dermatol 2012;30(2):231-6.
9. Rhm W, Woloschak GE, Shore RE, Azizova TV, Grosche B, Niwa O, et al. Dose and doserate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection. Radiat
Environ Biophys 2015;54(4):379-401.
10. Khaltourina D, Korotayev A. Effects of specific alcohol control policy measures on alcoholrelated mortality in Russia from 1998 to 2013. Alcohol Alcohol 2015;50:588-601.
11. Katz AR. Who is afraid of Volume 1181 of the New York Academy of Sciences? Int J
Health Serv 2015;45:530-544.
12. Jargin SV. Dose and dose-rate effectiveness of radiation: first objectivity then conclusions. J
Environ Occup Sci 2016;5(1):25-29.
13. Jargin SV. Alcohol and alcoholism in Russia: insiders observations and review of literature.
J Addiction Prevention 2016;4(1):6.
14. Jargin SV. On the RET/PTC3 rearrangements in Chernobyl-related thyroid cancer vs. late
detection. Int J Cancer Res Mol Mech 2015;1(4).
15. Jargin SV. Stem cells and cell therapy: On the eve of scientific discovery. Cell Tiss Biol
2011;5:103.
16. Jargin SV, RazvodovskyYE. Alcohol and alcoholism in Russia: what has changed during last
50 years. Sobriologia-Sobriology 2016;(2): 52-57.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308527113_Alkogol_i_alkogolizm_cto_izmenilos_za_
polveka_Alcohol_and_alcoholism_in_Russia_what_has_changed_during_last_50_years
17. Jargin SV. Chapter 1: Overestimation of Chernobyl Consequences: Motives and Mechanisms
(pp. 11-30) In: Environmental Regulation: Evaluation, Compliance and Economic Impact. New
York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009.
18. Jargin SV. Uncle and nephew: alcohol-related dementia. Hektoen Int J 2014 (Fall).
19. Jargin SV. Development of antiatherosclerotic drugs on the basis of cell models: a comment.
International Journal of Pharmacology, Phytochemistry and Ethnomedicine 2015;1:10-14.
20. Jargin SV. Alcohol consumption by Russian workers before and during the economical
reforms of the 1990s. Int J High Risk Behav Addict 2013;2(2):48-50.
12

21. Jargin SV. Condom use, alcohol, and reliability of survey data. Int J High Risk Behav Addict
2013;(in press):e31577, doi: 10.5812/ijhrba.31577.
22. Kraevski NA, Smolyannikov AV, Sarkisov DS, editors. Pathologo-anatomic diagnostics of
human tumors Vol. 2. Moskow: Meditsina; 1993. pp. 349-62. (in Russian)
23. Babichenko II, Vladimirtseva AL, Gundorova LV, Kharchenko NM, Jargin SV. Tests in
pathological anatomy. Special course. Moscow: Peoples' Friensdhip University of Russia; 1997.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280829116_Testy_po_patologiceskoj_anatomii_Castn
yj_kurs
24. Paltsev MA, Kogan EA, Tuntsova OI, Severin ES, Silaeva SA, Golenchenko VA.
Morphological and molecular-genetic characteristics of carcinoma, adenoma and surrounding
tissue of the thyroid gland. Arkh Patol. 1998;60(3):5-10.
25. Paltsev MA, Anichkov NM. Atlas of human tumor pathology. Moscow: Meditsina; 2005. p.
402.
26. Jargin SV. Why fortified wines have disappeared. Winemaking and Viticulture (Moscow)
2014;(3):19. (in Russian)

13