Poult Sci 2007. 86:2051-2052
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
Ethics of Publication: Is Publication an Obligation for Researchers?1
C. G. Scanes, Editor-in-Chief
Is publication of research findings in a peer-reviewed journal an obligation for scientists? I would contend emphatically that the answer is yes. Perhaps I have a vested interest, as a journal editor, in making that statement, but it is nonetheless true. Let us consider the rationale behind my position that publication is an obligation.
Publication of the paper makes available, to the scientific community, the research in its entirety. This allows the research to be duplicated. One criterion for the work to be accepted by the community is whether it can be duplicated. The detailed methods allow other scientists to employ the same approaches (of course, giving credit to the original researcher by citing the work). The results allow the scientific community to build on the knowledge and to take it in directions not conceived of in the original research. Moreover, the results may become part of an extensive database for a meta-analysis (discussed below). The introduction and discussion sections allow the development of working hypotheses and facilitate the progress from data to results, to information, and finally, to knowledge. It is critically important that the published article has undergone rigorous peer review.
Let us consider the alternatives to publishing. The work may "sit" in a laboratory notebook or computer file and never benefit the development of science or help the industry or the public. There seems to be little point to research that does not "see the light of day." When the work has commercial implications or applications, publication in a peer-reviewed journal after submission of a patent is highly appropriate and has very different objectives. Holding the research as a trade secret may be appropriate in some commercial entities, but that restricts scientific dialog and the ethos of scientific discovery.
If there is an obligation for investigators to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals, to whom is it an obligation? For researchers in a public university or research center, I believe that there is an obligation to the taxpayers (the people of the state, province, or country, and anyone else who funded the research). Moreover, there is a responsibility to other scientists in the field to have the benefit of previous work available. At the very least, it eliminates the likelihood of unnecessary duplication. Students have an obligation to publish, because a publication record is important in the search for jobs. Institutions (departments, colleges, universities) want their investigators to publish, because publications are becoming increasingly important in the evaluation of programs globally. For the individual researcher, publications in peer-reviewed journals are used in promotion, tenure, and annual evaluations.
 |
Publication of Abstracts and Conference Proceedings
|
|---|
We have all heard from at least a few colleagues that they have "published" their work as an abstract or conference proceedings. Unfortunately, this can create problems. Neither abstracts nor conference proceedings allow room for the complete description of the methods employed or the results obtained. Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try to duplicate the studies or the method. Moreover, conference proceedings are frequently difficult to access. Abstract and conference proceedings are not subject to a thorough peer-review, if reviewed at all. For these and other reasons, abstracts and conference proceedings are not included in the calculation of a journal¥s impact factor.
|
Publication of Negative or Inconclusive Findings
|
|---|
There is a marked difference between negative results and inconclusive results. Negative results are those that allow the null hypothesis to be accepted. Inconclusive results are those for which the null hypothesis is neither convincingly rejected nor accepted. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) notes that the "Failure to submit or publish negative studies, in particular, contributes to publication bias" (ICMJE, 2006; http://www.icmje.org/#obligation). This would clearly be the case when comparing two products or a single product versus no intervention (negative control). It can be argued that researchers have an obligation to publish their results irrespective of which product appeared superior; researchers also have an obligation to identify the funding source. For a commercial company, just as for an individual researcher, reputation is everything. Not disclosing information is unethical and also places the company in some significant jeopardy.
In these days of meta-analysis (Rosen, 2007), I question how we should address the existence of inconclusive, and hence unpublished, results. Combining the data from studies in which there is a positive (or negative) result creates the possibility for bias if multiple inclusive studies have been performed but not published. On the other hand, if multiple inclusive studies were subject to the power of meta-analysis, then either positive or negative results could be generated. Parenthetically, it should be added that the obvious corollary is that the experimental conditions need to be described in detail. These may have profound implications for the poultry industry. The views of poultry scientists on how the journal can address these important issues are welcomed.
|
What Should Not Be Published?
|
|---|
Clearly, some manuscripts should not be accepted by a journal. Such situations include the following:
- Submission of manuscripts that are duplicates or overlap significantly with other submissions from the same authors to Poultry Science or other journals;
- Manuscripts in which the science is flawed. For instance, there may be problems with the experimental design, or the methods (experimental, statistical etc.) may be inadequate or dated.
- Manuscripts in which the writing is unclear and, hence (even with the efforts of the science and technical editors), unlikely to be understood completely by the reader. Authors, particularly those who are not native speakers of English, are advised to use some of the services available to improve the writing and its style.
|
Competing Manuscripts Based on the Same Database
|
|---|
One question is how to deal with "competing manuscripts based on the same database" (ICMJE, 2006; http://www.icmje.org/#obligation). Such manuscripts may result from different groups of investigators employing different approaches to answer different questions. In Poultry Science, such manuscripts will be considered irrespective of whether they use the same or different databases.
In conclusion, it is important to see continuing discussion on our obligation as investigators to publish and as a journal to publish strong papers in our field. I will address the peer review system in a future editorial.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
1 I gratefully acknowledge the excellent suggestion of Andrew Giesen (president of the Poultry Science Association) to publish editorials related to ethics and other issues of importance to poultry scientists. 
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). 2006. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. http://www.icmje.org/#obligationRosen, G. 2007. Nutritive value of methionine sources. Poult. Sci. 86:209–210.[Free Full Text]
TOP
Publication of Abstracts and...
Publication of Negative or...
