Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guidelines on
Publishing Ethics
A Publishers Perspective
Second Edition
Contents
Introduction 1
Aims and scope 1
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 1
Ethics Helpdesk at Wiley 1
First: Speak with your publisher 2
Research integrity 2
Misconduct 2
Whistle blowing 2
Fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation 3
Plagiarism 3
Duplicate and redundant publication 3
Sanctions 4
Research ethics in journal articles 5
Human rights, privacy, and confidentiality 5
Cultures and heritage 5
Registering clinical trials 6
Animals in research 6
Biosecurity 7
Reporting guidelines 7
Editorial standards and processes 7
Authorship 7
Authorship disputes 9
Funding 9
Peer review 9
Timing of publication 10
Editors and journal staff as authors 10
Conflicts of interest 10
Libel and defamation 11
Editorial independence and commercial issues 11
Academic debate 12
Appeals 12
Corrections 12
Retractions and Expressions of Concern 13
Withdrawal of articles 13
Data protection legislation 13
Copyright and intellectual property 13
Resources for responsible publication policies and procedures 15
Flowcharts 21
Sample letters 39
Contributors 53
Best Practice
Guidelines on
Publishing Ethics
Introduction
If you are reading a printed version of this document, you will not have access to embedded urls
as reference points. To access these, please visit the HTML version of the document online at
http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.
Medical journals that publish clinical trials should make Editors may ask authors to describe in their articles
prospective registration a requirement for publication of how discomfort, distress, and pain were avoided and
such trials. Clinical trial registration numbers should be minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer
included in all papers that report their results. A suitable unnecessarily at any stage of an experiment.
statement about this in journal instructions for authors might
Editors may request that reviewers comment on the
read: We require that clinical trials are prospectively
standard of experimental reporting, experimental design,
registered in a publicly accessible database. Please
or any other aspects of the study reported that may cause
include the name of the trial register and your clinical trial
concern. If concerns are raised or clarifications are
registration number at the end of your abstract. If your trial
needed, they may need to request evidence of ethical
is not registered, or was registered retrospectively, please
research approval or question authors.
explain the reasons for this.
Accurate and complete reporting enables readers to fully Journals should require authors to confirm that they
appraise research, replicate it, and use it. Editors should and their co-authors all meet the journals criteria for
encourage authors to follow their disciplines guidelines authorship, and that nobody who meets these criteria has
for accurate and complete reporting of research. Editors, been omitted from the list.
working with peer reviewers, should ensure that authors Journals should consider requesting that authors provide
provide the information readers need to evaluate the a short description of each authors contribution in an
methods and results, so that readers can reach their own Acknowledgment.
conclusions.
Journals should request that contributions from anyone
In health research, the EQUATOR Network promotes who does not meet the criteria for authorship are
useful reporting tools. listed, with permission from the contributor, in an
In life sciences, useful reporting guidelines are promoted Acknowledgments section (for example, to recognize
by Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship contributions from people who provided technical help,
(FORCE11). Specific reporting guidance that editors can writing assistance, or a department chairperson who
recommend for animal experiments include the ARRIVE provided general support).
guidelines, the National Research Councils Institute for Journals should ask corresponding authors to confirm
Laboratory Animal Research guidelines, and the Gold they have received written authorization from all their
Standard Publication Checklist from Hooijmans and co-authors for publication of the article. The Copyright
colleagues. Transfer Agreements and Exclusive Licence Agreements
Standards for reporting animal studies are discussed in used by Wiley incorporate this.
more detail by Landis and colleagues. Journals should require that, prior to submitting their
Further guidelines and standards in bioscience are article, all authors agree the order in which their names
promoted on the Minimum Information Guidelines from will be listed in their manuscript.
Diverse Bioscience Communities (MIBBI) website and by Journals should ask the corresponding author to ensure
the Biosharing website. that all the journals administrative requirements, such
Livestock reporting guidelines are provided by the as providing details of authorship, ethics committee
REFLECT statement approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and
gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are
properly completed.
Journals should consider sending copies of all
correspondence with the corresponding author to all
listed authors. They should ensure as far as possible
that emails are not returned because of invalid email
addresses.
Journals should encourage authors to use tools that
remove potential ambiguity around author names, such
as the unique persistent digital identifiers provided by
ORCID.
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions
related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated
and resolved.
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who
meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four
criteria should be acknowledged.
Authors collaborating on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work may have different and
perhaps nonoverlapping areas of expertise. However, authors should still be able to stand
accountable for ensuring investigation and resolution of questions related to the accuracy
or integrity of any part of the work.
Journals should reserve the right not to publish any Journals should work with authors and their publisher to
funded publication that does not comply with their correct important published errors.
requirements. Journals should publish corrections when important errors
are found, and should consider retraction when errors
are so fundamental that they invalidate the work.
Academic debate Corrections arising from errors within an article should be
distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern
Journals should facilitate debate.
relating to misconduct.
Journals should encourage correspondence and
Corrections should be included in indexing systems and
constructive criticism of the work they publish.
linked to the original article.
If an item of correspondence discusses a specific article,
Corrections should be free to access.
the journal should invite the authors of the work to
respond before the correspondence is published. When Retractions and Expressions of Concern are discussed in
possible, the correspondence and the authors response other sections of these guidelines.
should be published at the same time.
EuCheMS. European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuCheMS): Ethical Guidelines for Publications in
Journals and Reviews
http://www.euchems.eu/publications.html
FDAAA. US Food and Drug Administration Amendments
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/
significantamendmentstothefdcact/foodanddrugadministrationamendmentsactof2007/default.htm
Act of 2007 The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship (FORCE11) Recommended reporting guidelines for
FORCE11. life science resources
http://www.force11.org/node/4433.
FSHI. Sociology of Health and Illness and Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness approach to misconduct click
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9566/asset/homepages/shi_approach_to_
misconduct pdf?v=1&s=9e66b72888874d79f 39390c1443cd87dae9ba112&isAguDoi=false
Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice
Hames, I. (ed) (2007) Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. doi: 10.1002/9780470750803
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470750803
ICLAS. International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS). Ethical Guidelines for editors and reviewers
http://iclas.org/committees/ethics-and-animal-welfare-committee
ICMJE. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Conflicts of Interest Form.
http://www.icmje.org/coi_instructions.html
ICMJE. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations
http://www.icmje.org/
IFPMA, EFPIA, Joint Position on the Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information via Clinical Trial Registries and Databases,
JPMA, PhRMA. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), European Federation of
Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA),
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org/clinicaltrials/fileadmin/files/pdfs/EN/November_10_2009_Updated_Joint_
Position_on_the_Disclosure_of_Clinical_Trial_Information_via_Clinical_Trial_Registries_and_Databases.pdf
IFPMA, EFPIA, Joint Position on the Publication of Clinical Trial Results in the Scientific Literature, International
JPMA, PhRMA. Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), European Federation of
Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
(JPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org/clinicaltrials/fileadmin/files/pdfs/20100610_Joint_Position_PublicatioP_10Jun2010.pdf
ISE. International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) Code of Ethics
http://www.ethnobiology.net/global_coalition/CoE-Eng.php
ISMPP. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines
http://www.ismpp.org/gpp2, http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4330.long
Contributors
These guidelines were written by Lisa Deakin, Martine Docking, Chris Graf, Jackie Jones, Tiffany McKerahan,
Martin Ottmar, Allen Stevens, Edward Wates, and Deb Wyatt, with additional contributions from Sue Joshua.
Discuss
with reviewer
Contact author in neutral Proceed with
Contact corresponding author in
terms/expressing disappointment/ review
writing, ideally enclosing signed
explaining journals position
authorship statement (or cover letter)
Explain that secondary
stating that submitted work has not been
papers must refer to original Note: ICMJE
published elsewhere and
Request missing reference advises that
documentary evidence of duplication
to original and/or remove translations are
overlapping material acceptable but MUST
Proceed with review reference the original.
Satisfactory
explanation No response
(honest error/
journal instructions
unclear/very
Contact authors institution requesting your concern Developed for COPE
junior researcher)
is passed to authors superior and/or person by Liz Wager of
responsible for research governance Sideview
Write to author (all authors if Try to obtain acknowledgement of your letter (www.lizwager.com)
possible) rejecting submission, 2013 Committee on
explaining position and Publication Ethics
expected future behaviour First published 2006
Write to author (all authors If no response,
if possible) rejecting keep contacting A non-exclusive
submission, explaining position institution every licence to reproduce
and expected future behavior 36 months these flowcharts may
Consider informing be applied for by
authors superior writing to:
and/or person cope_administrator@
responsible Inform author(s) Inform reviewer of publicationethics.org
for research of your action outcome/action
governance
publicationethics.org
page 22 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Thank reader and say you plan to investigate Note: The instructions
Get full documentary evidence if not already provided to authors should
state the journals
policy on redundant
publication.
Check degree of overlap/redundancy
Asking authors to sign
a statement or tick a
box may be helpful in
Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based on subsequent
Minor overlap (salami publishing investigations.
same dataset with identical findings
with some element of redundancy)
and/or evidence that authors
or legitimate re-analysis (e.g. sub-
have sought to hide redundancy,
group/extended follow-up/discussion
e.g. by changing title or author order
aimed at different audience)
or not referring to previous papers)
Satisfactory
explanation No response Developed for COPE
(honest error/ by Liz Wager of
journal instructions Sideview
unclear/very junior (www.lizwager.com)
Contact authors institution requesting your concern is 2013 Committee on
researcher)
passed to authors superior and/or person Publication Ethics
responsible for research governance First published 2006
Consider publishing statement
A non-exclusive
of redundant publication or
licence to reproduce
retraction Inform editor of other
these flowcharts may
journal involved Write to author (all authors if If no response,
be applied for by
possible) explaining position keep contacting
writing to:
and expected future behaviour institution every
cope_administrator@
36 months
publicationethics.org
Consider informing
authors superior
and /or person
responsible for Inform author(s) Inform reader of
research governance of your action outcome/action
publicationethics.org
Satisfactory
explanation No response
(honest error/ Developed for COPE
journal instructions by Liz Wager of
unclear/very junior Sideview
Contact authors institution requesting your concern (www.lizwager.com)
researcher) is passed to authors superior and/or person 2013 Committee on
responsible for research governance Publication Ethics
Write to author (all authors if First published 2006
possible) rejecting submission,
explaining position and A non-exclusive
expected future behaviour Write to author (all authors if If no response, keep licence to reproduce
possible) rejecting submission or contacting institution these flowcharts may
requesting revision, explaining every 36 months be applied for by
position and expected future behaviour If no resolution, consider writing to:
contacting other cope_administrator@
Consider informing
authorities, e.g. ORI in publicationethics.org
authors superior and/
or person responsible US, GMC in UK
for research governance Inform author(s) Inform reviewer of
and/or potential victim of your action outcome/action
publicationethics.org
page 24 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Thank reader and say you plan to investigate Note: The instructions
Get full documentary evidence if not already provided to authors should
include a definition of
plagiarism and state
the journals
Check degree of copying
policy on it
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 25
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Unsatisfactory
answer/ Satisfactory
admits guilt Author replies No response
explanation
publicationethics.org
page 26 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 27
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Changes in authorship
(a) Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
Proceed with
review/publication
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
Changes in authorship
(b) Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 29
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Changes in authorship
(c) Request for addition of extra author after publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship Ask why author was omitted
from original list ideally,
refer to journal guidelines or To prevent future
Check that all authors consent authorship declaration which problems:
to addition of extra author should state that all authors (1) Before publication,
meet appropriate criteria and get authors to sign
that no deserving authors have statement that all
been omitted listed authors meet
authorship criteria and
All authors agree Authors do not agree
that no others meeting
the criteria have been
omitted
Publish correction Explain that you will not change the (2) Publish details
authorship until you have written of each persons
agreement from all authors contribution to the
Provide authorship guidelines research and
but do not enter into dispute publication
Publish correction if
required by institution(s)
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
page 30 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Changes in authorship
(d) Request for removal of author after publication
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 31
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
publicationethics.org
page 32 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 33
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
What to do if What
a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest
to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
(Col) in a submitted manuscript
Reviewer (or editor) raises ethical
e.g. lack of ethical approval/
concern about manuscript
concern re: patient consent
or protection/concern
re: animal experimentation
Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate
Contact institution at 36
monthly intervals, seeking
conclusion of investigation
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
page 34 WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 35
C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
Contact institution at 36
monthly intervals, seeking
conclusion of investigation
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts may
be applied for by
writing to:
cope_administrator@
publicationethics.org
publicationethics.org
WILEY / Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics page 37
COPE
Sample Letters
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz
We understand that that you wish to have author aaa added/removed from the
authorship of this paper. Please note that we require written confirmation that all of
the original authors agree with this change in authorship.
Refer to your guidelines on authorship. If author(s) are added you will want to ask
about the contributions and competing interests of the new author(s)
Once we have this consent we will then publish a formal correction to the paper.
We look forward to hearing from you by
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz
We have noticed that you have added/removed xxx from the authorship of this
paper. Please can you explain this change of authorship?
Refer to your guidelines on authorship. If author(s) are added you will want to ask
about the contributions and competing interests of the new author(s)
Please note that we require written confirmation that all of the original authors
agree with this change in authorship. Until we have heard from you we cannot
proceed further with the review/publication of your paper. We look forward to
hearing from you by
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published
give citation)
It has been brought to our attention/we have noticed that not all the competing
interests that are relevant to this manuscript may have been declared.
If necessary elaborate here on the competing interests and add link to the journals
policy.
We would be grateful for an explanation. (If paper is not published add this text: Until
we have heard from you we cannot proceed further with the review/publication of
your paper.) We look forward to hearing from you by
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published
give citation)
It has been brought to our attention/we have noticed that this manuscript does not
provide sufficient information for us to judge whether the study you describe in this
manuscript was conducted according to accepted ethical guidelines for the treatment
of humans/animals.
If necessary elaborate here e.g. lack of evidence of informed consent and add link
to appropriate author guidelines.
I would be grateful if you could clarify how this research was carried out,
specifically.
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz
It has been brought to our attention/we have noticed that one of the figures in the
above manuscript may have been manipulated inappropriately.
We would be grateful for any explanation you can provide and look forward to
hearing from you by (If paper is not published add this text: Until we have heard
from you we cannot proceed further with the review/publication of your paper)
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz,
published on 123
It has been brought to our attention/we have noticed that the above manuscript
contains substantial overlap with a manuscript entitled aaa, published by journal b
give full citation.
We would be grateful for any explanation that you can provide and look forward to
hearing from you by
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz
It has been brought to our attention/we have noticed that one of the figures in the
above manuscript may have been manipulated inappropriately.
We would be grateful for any explanation you can provide and look forward to
hearing from you by (If paper is not published add this text: Until we have heard
from you we cannot proceed further with the review/publication of your paper)
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz
It has been brought to our attention that the above manuscript contains substantial
overlap with a manuscript entitled aaa, submitted to/published by journal b (give full
citation for published paper; for unpublished papers only attach paper if the other
journal has specifically agreed and the authors on both papers are the same or
overlapping).
We would be grateful for any explanation you can provide and look forward to
hearing from you by
Until we have heard from you we cannot proceed further with the review/publication
of your paper.
Yours sincerely
RE: Manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published give
citation)
It has been brought to our attention that you may have shared this manuscript
while it was under review at this journal. Give details
As you know, in our reviewer guidelines (give link) we do ask reviewers to maintain
confidentiality at all times during the review process. Could you explain what
happened?
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published
give citation)
Many thanks for your letter. We appreciate your explanation; however we feel that in
accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics, of which this
journal is a member, we will need to investigate this matter further.
Until this matter is resolved we cannot proceed further with the review/publication of
your paper.
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published
give citation)
We have investigated the matter thoroughly and we are happy that figure b is not
the same as in paper x.
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published give
citation)
We have investigated the matter as far as we are able and have not been able to
resolve it satisfactorily.
In accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics, of which this
journal is a member, we are therefore asking your institution to investigate this matter
further.
Until the investigation of this matter is concluded we will not be able to proceed further
with review/publication of this paper
Yours sincerely
RE: Your manuscript number xxx, name yyy, submitted to journal zzz (if published
give citation)
We have investigated the matter thoroughly. In our opinion there is clear evidence
that figure a was manipulated inappropriately/the degree of overlap with paper b
would constitute duplicate publication, etc
I am sending this letter to all the authors listed on the manuscript. Next sentence
depends on how severe you feel the offence is. I will also be informing your
institution of the outcome.
Yours sincerely
Martine Docking, BSc, MCom,Commercial Director, Employed by Wiley, Singapore (Asia Pacific)
Chris Graf, BSc (Hons), New Business Director, Professional Innovations, Treasurer of COPE, Employed by Wiley,
(Oxford, UK)
Jackie Jones, BA (Hons), Executive Editor, Life Sciences, Employed by Wiley (Oxford,UK)
Tiffany McKerahan, BA, Editor, Life Sciences, Employed by Wiley, Hoboken (New Jersey, USA)
Martin Ottmar, Dr. Rer. Nat., Deputy Editor, Advanced Materials & Editor-in-Chief, Advanced Energy Materials
Employed by Wiley-VCH (Weinheim, Germany)
Allen Stevens, MA, DPhil, Journal Editorial Director, Health Sciences, Employed by Wiley (Oxford, UK)
Edward Wates, VP & Director, Global Journal Content Management, Employed by Wiley (Oxford, UK)
Deborah Wyatt, BA (Hons), Editorial Director, Employed by Wiley, Richmond (Vic. Australia)
We would like to thank everyone who contributed to the first edition of our ethics guidelines, upon which these
guidelines are based: Lise Baltzer, Caroline Black, Alyson Bowman, Suzan Fiack, Andrew Robinson,
Diane Scott-Lichter, and Elizabeth Wager.