Figure 1a.
Figure 1b.
Figure 1c.
Figure 1d.
Figure 2a.
Figure 2b.
Figure 3a.
Figure 3b.
Figure 3c.
Figure 4a.
Figure 4b.
Figure 4c.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Assessment of what went wrong in the case described in Table2a, and how each stakeholder can improve collaborations and practices to work towards long-term solutions addressing training needs_
| Stakeholder | Gaps to be addressed | Training content development | Ongoing improvements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate student (submitting author) | The student assumed the role of submitting author without understanding authorship responsibilities. | Provide feedback to supervisors and institution about areas of confusion regarding authorship, citation practices and working with third-party services. | Provide feedback to librarians and institution about the usefulness of training, including whether the mode of delivery supports learning objectives. |
| Researchers, Supervisors, PI’s (coauthors) | The supervisor needed to guide the student about submission tasks. | Gather feedback from students and research teams on: Awareness of publishing ethics.
| Provide feedback on training modules developed by the institution and publishers. |
| Research integrity officers (RIOs) | Collate data on recurring areas of concern and inform institution on topics for mandatory training. | Ensure emerging issues in research integrity are included in training modules and resources. | |
| Institution (including Librarian) | The institution did not have established practice to ensure awareness about ethical publication processes including authorship responsibilities and citation practices. | Provide training and guidance for supervisors about the role in mentoring others through the publication process. | Monitor training completion and measure successful outcomes (e.g. test scores, surveys). |
| Editors and Publishers | Authorship policies, including the responsibilities of submitting, corresponding author and co-authors were not sufficiently clear. | Training and support for editors on monitoring authorship changes.
| Identify specific disciplines and regions that need support and broaden training and engagement outreach accordingly. |
Recommended roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in ensuring training needs for researchers on research integrity and publishing ethics_
| Stakeholder | Identify training needs | Provide funds for training | Develop training materials | Provide access to training | Deliver training | Undertake training |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undergraduates, Masters, PhD | √ | |||||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | All early career researchers should undertake the required training. | |||||
| Researchers | √ | √ | ||||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | In addition to undertaking training, experienced researchers should also raise awareness about ongoing training needs. | |||||
| Supervisors, PI’s research integrity officers | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | Research institution staff who have responsibility for supervising, training and overseeing research activities should ensure training needs are identified and included in training materials, and that access to training programmes are provided. They should also complete any required training themselves to ensure they are up-to-date in their knowledge and skills. In some cases, they may also be required to deliver the training. | |||||
| Librarians | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | Through their interaction with researchers at all stages, librarians are in a position to identify training needs, and to organise and coordinate training sessions internally as well as with external stakeholders (e.g. publishers). Librarians should also complete any required training themselves to ensure they are up-to-date in their knowledge and skills. | |||||
| Research institutions | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | At an institutional level, funding and development to address fundamental and ongoing training needs for all relevant parties (students, researchers, staff) should be considered, including the provision of resources to accommodate the different requirements and formats in which training can take place, and uptake of training can be monitored. | |||||
| Funders | √ | |||||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | Funders who provide resources for research should also provide funding for research integrity and publishing ethics training, and to ensure compliance, this should be a condition to be met by applicants/institutions to secure any type of research funding. | |||||
| Editors and publishers | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | As gatekeepers and disseminators of research, journal editors and publishers should ensure training gaps in publishing ethics are identified and addressed in accessible resources for authors, reviewers and editors. Where possible, publishers should also provide comprehensive training programmes to researchers, either via their institutions or via online training sessions. Publishers and editors should also complete any required training themselves to ensure they are up-to-date in their knowledge and skills. Providing publishing ethics training to key stakeholders at institutions via train-the-trainer programmes will ensure that wider and long-term training needs are met. | |||||
| Other organisations (e.g. COPE) | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Rationale for stakeholder role and responsibility | Neutral organisations such as COPE play a widespread and global role in developing publishing ethics and integrity guidelines as well as education and training materials. They also organise and deliver the training where possible. | |||||
Hypothetical case highlighting concerns about authorship and involvement of an unethical third-party manuscript service_
| Following peer review in a journal, a submission was accepted by the Editor. Shortly after, the journal received a complaint from one of the co-authors (Dr X) stating that they do not recognise two other co-authors (Drs C and D) who appear on the author list. Due to the authorship concerns, the Editor and publisher halted the production process of the paper. The Editor informed Dr X, as per COPE guidelines, that they will reach out to the corresponding author Prof B for an explanation. | |
|---|---|
| Journal Investigation (Publisher and Editor) | The Editor raised these concerns to the research integrity team (RI) at the publisher. Upon checking the submission details, the RI team finds that:
|
| Author response (Author A and Prof B) | Author A responded very quickly with the following statements:
|
| Journal response (Publisher and Editor) | As the authorship concerns and reference irregularities had not been satisfactorily addressed, the Editor informed Prof B and Author A that they are referring the matter to their institution and their submission has been placed on hold. The Editor promptly sent a summary of the case to the research integrity officer of the institution, asking them to investigate the authorship and reference irregularities, requesting to be kept updated. |
| Institution investigation and response | A few weeks later, the research integrity officer at the institution replied to confirm:
|
| Outcome at the journal | The submission was withdrawn from the journal. In addition, the RI team at the publisher informed the institution of Drs C and D about the authorship misconduct concerns on the submission. The RI team also contacted the manuscript service used by Author A, warning them against their unethical practices, but never received a response. |