Abstract
Four publishing-related organizations, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the first being dedicated specifically to the creation and dissemination of ethics policies, established a set of 16 principles related to journal and publisher transparency and “best” publishing practices. The first, second, third and fourth versions were published in 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively. Membership of these organizations implies that members can only become such if they satisfy these principles. This paper compares the four versions to appreciate how the content has changed over time, as a historical endeavor to gather how publishing ethics has progressed over time. An assessment is also made to determine whether all principles are related to transparency and best principles, and if any may be missing. We concluded that the 16 principles offer broad guidance to several important aspects related to journal and publishing ethics and management. However, the vast majority are in general excessively broad, occasionally vague, or lack sufficient examples or specifics, despite the slight improvement between versions 3 and 4. We argue further that these weaknesses may limit their practical application. Until September 2022, there was no transparency regarding the consequences for any members that might violate, or not abide by, these principles. In the light of these arguments, we are of the opinion that the 16 principles of “best” publishing practices merit additional improvements.
References
Al-Khatib A. & Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2017. “What Rights Do Authors Have?” Science and Engineering Ethics 23(3):947–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8
Ansorge L. 2023. “Open Access Mirror Journals: An Experiment in Brand Loyalty,” Science Editing 10(2):154–157. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.308
Awais S. M. 2013. “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,” Annals of KEMU 19(4):266.
Choi H.-W., Choi Y.-J., & Kim S. 2019. “Compliance of ‘Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing’ in Academic Society Published Journals,” Science Editing 6(2):112–121. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.171
Choi Y.-J., Choi H.-W., & Kim S. 2020. “Compliance of ‘Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing’ in Korean Academic Society-Published Journals Listed in Journal Citation Reports,” Science Editing 7(1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.186
COPE 2024. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Available online at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing
Dal-Ré R., Caplan A. L., & Marusic A. 2019. “Editors’ and Authors’ Individual Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Journal Transparency. A Cross-Sectional Study of High-Impact Medical Specialty Journals,” BMJ Open 9(7), article no. e029796. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029796
DOAJ 2024. Transparency & Best Practice. Available online at: https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/
Dobránszki J. & Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2019. “Corrective factors for Author- and Journal-based Metrics Impacted by Citations to Accommodate for Retractions,” Scientometrics 121(1):387–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03190-0
Ford E. 2019. “Moving Peer Review Transparency from Process to Praxis,” Insights 32(27):1–6. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.480
Frantsvåg J. E. 2019. “The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed – Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?” Publications 7(3):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030045
Hamel C., Méthot J., & Mallet L. 2021. “Compliance with Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: Where Does Pharmactuel Stand? A Case Study,” European Science Editing 47, article no. e71728. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2021.e71728
Huh S. 2018. “Adherence of the Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,” Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism 23(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2018.23.1.1
Jacob M.-A. 2019. “Under Repair: A Publication Ethics and Research Record in the Making,” Social Studies of Science 49(1):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718824663
Jung Y.-I. & Seo T.-S. 2022. “ICT-based Cooperative Model for Transparent and Sustainable Scholarly Publishing Ecosystem,” Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 21(1):53–71. https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2022.21.1.053
Kahr B., McHenry L. B., & Hollingsworth M. D. 2019. “Academic Publishing and Scientific Integrity: Case Studies of Editorial Interference at Taylor & Francis,” Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity 1(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.35122/jospi.2019.848394
Kendall G., Yee A., & McCollum B. 2016. “Is There a Role for Publication Consultants and How Should Their Contribution Be Recognized?” Science and Engineering Ethics 22(5):1553–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9710-9
Kim S. & Choi H.-W. 2019. “Status of Digital Standards, Licensing Types, and Archiving Policies in Asian Open Access Journals Registered in Directory of Open Access Journals,” Science Editing 6(1):41–66. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.154
Kratochvíl J., Plch L., & Koriťáková E. 2019. “Compliance with Ethical Rules for Scientific Publishing in Biomedical Open Access Journals Indexed in Journal Citation Reports,” Vnitřní lékařství 65(5):338–347. https://doi.org/ 10.36290/vnl.2019.061
Kratochvíl J., Plch L., Sebera M., & Koriťáková E. 2020. “Evaluation of Untrustworthy Journals: Transition from Formal Criteria to a Complex View,” Learned Publishing 33(3):308–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299
Lane T. 2018. “Journal Publication Ethics and Implications for Life Science Researchers: A COPE Perspective,” Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 2(6):763–767. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20180164
Maceachern A. 2018. “A Failure to Cope: One Academic’s Experience with the Committee on Publication Ethics.” Available online at: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/failure-to-cope/
Madlock-Brown C. R. & Eichmann D. 2015. “The (Lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks,” Science and Engineering Ethics 21(1):127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1
Misra D. P. & Agarwal V. 2021. “Present-day Tools for Sssessing Publishing Integrity in Biomedical Science Represent Valuable Work in Progress,” Clinical Rheumatology 40(5):2111–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-021-05702-x
Moussa S. & Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2023. “Testing the Robustness of the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Characterization of Predatory Publishing on a COPE Member (Academic and Business Research Institute),” Publishing Research Quarterly 39(4):337–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09967-9
Mzhelsky A. A. 2022. “Data and Reproducibility. Interpretation of International Guidelines and Journals’ Best Policies and Practices,” Science Editor and Publisher 7(2):143–165. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-53 (in Russian, with English abstract)
Ndungu M. W. 2021. “Scholarly Journal Publishing Standards, Policies and Guidelines,” Learned Publishing 34(4):612–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1410
Ng J. Y., Cobey K. D., Ahmed S., Chow V., Maduranayagam S. G., Santoro L. J., ... & Moher D. 2023. “Recommendations and Guidelines for Creating Scholarly Biomedical Journals: A Scoping Review,” PLoS ONE 18(3), article no. e0282168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282168
Nho J.-H. 2023. “Update on the Fourth Version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: Relevance for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing,” Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing 29(2):77–80. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2023.06.14
Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association 2024. Available online at: https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-dues/
Pearson G. S. 2017. “Updates from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),” Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 23(6):384–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390317738506
PlosOne 2024. Publication Ethics. Available online at: https://publicationethics.org/members/plos-one
Retraction Watch 2024. Available online at: https://retractionwatch.com/?s=JCR+suppression
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2017. “COPE Requires Greater Consistency and Accountability,” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 8(1):11–13. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2017.v8n1p
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2019. “Debunking the Loss of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Moral Compass: Conspiracy Theory, or Genuine Cause for Concern?” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29(3):99–109.
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2021a. “Assessing the Ethics of Stings, Including from the Prism of Guidelines by Ethics-Promoting Organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE),” Publishing Research Quarterly 37(1):90–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09784-y
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2021b. “Outsourced English Revision, Editing, Publication Consultation and Integrity Services Should Be Acknowledged in an Academic Paper,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 23(4), article no. 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-021-05199-0
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2021c. “Is the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Trustee Board Racially Inclusive?” Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 17, article no. 100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100642
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2021d. “Conflicts of Interest Arising from Simultaneous Service by Editors of Competing Journals or Publishers,” Publications 9(1), article no. 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010006
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2021e. “Updates on Information Regarding the Directory of Open Access Journals Platform May Increase Its Reliability,” Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 2(3):162–165. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2021.2.3.05
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2022. “Does the Culture of Science Publishing Need to Change from the Status Quo Principle of ‘Trust Me’?” Nowotwory Journal of Oncology 7(2):137–138. https://doi.org/10.5603/NJO.a2022.0001
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2023a. “A Reflection on Springer Nature’s Current Editorial Policies Related to ‘Predatory’ Journals and References: A Pertinent Lesson for Other Publishers,” Science Editor and Publisher 8(2):110–123. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-23-17
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2023b. “Scrutiny of the COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,” PsyArXiv (preprint, not peer reviewed). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m5d3u
Teixeira da Silva J. A. 2023c. “Must the ICMJE and COPE Guidelines and/or Recommendations Be Interpreted (and Used) As Voluntary Advice or As Mandatory Rules?” Health Policy and Technology 12(4), article no. 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100817
Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Al-Khatib A., & Tsigaris P. 2018. “Challenges facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) As a Reliable Source of Open Access Publishing Venues,” Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences 55(3):349–358. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55(3).e001.BC.BE
Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J., Tsigaris P., & Al-Khatib A. 2019a. “Predatory and Exploitative Behaviour in Academic Publishing: An Assessment,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45(6), article no. 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071
Teixeira da Silva J. A., Katavić V., Dobránszki J., Al-Khatib A., & Bornemann-Cimenti H. 2019b. “Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism,” KOME 7(1):110–125. https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.75698.87
Teixeira da Silva J. A. & Nazarovets S. 2022. “Publication History: A Double DOI-based Method to Store and/or Monitor Information about Published and Corrected Academic Literature,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 53(2):85–108. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.2017-0017
Teixeira da Silva J. A. & Vuong Q.-H. 2021. “Do Legitimate Publishers Profit from Error, Misconduct or Fraud?” Exchanges 8(3):55–68. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785
World Association of Medical Editors 2024. “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.” Available online at: https://wame.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing
Zhang Y.-H. H., Lin H.-F., Zhang X.-X., & Ye Q. 2021. “The Next Steps in Academic Integrity – Education, Awareness, Norms, Duty and Law,” Forensic Sciences Research 6(4):341–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2021.1970887
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.