Cargando…

Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic jour...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wager, Elizabeth, Kleinert, Sabine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33853690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3
_version_ 1783679160686739456
author Wager, Elizabeth
Kleinert, Sabine
author_facet Wager, Elizabeth
Kleinert, Sabine
author_sort Wager, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. METHODS: These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. RESULTS: 1. develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2. release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3. take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4. work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. 1. respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2. have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3. pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4. retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8048029
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80480292021-04-15 Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice Wager, Elizabeth Kleinert, Sabine Res Integr Peer Rev Commentary BACKGROUND: Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. METHODS: These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. RESULTS: 1. develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2. release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3. take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4. work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. 1. respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2. have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3. pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4. retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3. BioMed Central 2021-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8048029/ /pubmed/33853690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Commentary
Wager, Elizabeth
Kleinert, Sabine
Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title_full Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title_fullStr Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title_full_unstemmed Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title_short Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
title_sort cooperation & liaison between universities & editors (clue): recommendations on best practice
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33853690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3
work_keys_str_mv AT wagerelizabeth cooperationliaisonbetweenuniversitieseditorscluerecommendationsonbestpractice
AT kleinertsabine cooperationliaisonbetweenuniversitieseditorscluerecommendationsonbestpractice
AT cooperationliaisonbetweenuniversitieseditorscluerecommendationsonbestpractice