1612 Edanz Keio

75 %
25 %
Information about 1612 Edanz Keio

Published on December 19, 2016

Author: edanz_group

Source: slideshare.net

1. Trevor Lane, PhD Author Success Workshop: Being an Ethical Researcher and Author Keio University 21 December 2016

2. S Be an ethical researcher and author Your goal is not only to publish but also to contribute to society  Importance of research and publication ethics  Ethics at publication planning  Ethics of reporting  Ethics at submission  Ethics of peer review and publicity

3. Skills needed on the path to publication success Preparation Journal Selection Writing Submission Peer Review Publication Success • Training in reading papers, ethics, writing, presenting • Expert Scientific Review • Expert Scientific Review • Journal Selection & submission strategy • Training in ethics, writing, presenting • Revising • Editing • Reformatting • Expert Scientific Review • Training in ethics, writing • Editing • Abstract Development • Cover Letter Development • Reviewer Recommendation • Training in navigating peer review • Review Editing • Point-by-point checking • Response Letter Development • Reformatting • Press release, news writing • Media & presentation training • Training for early career researchers • Training in writing grant proposals • Grant proposal editing

4. Potential ethical problems on the path to publication Preparation Journal Selection Writing Submission Peer Review Publication • No ethics board approval • Human trial unregistered • No consent • Citation stacking • Fabrication • Falsification • Questionable journals • Hijacked journals • Questionable publishers • Guest/gift/ ghost authorship • Plagiarism • Undisclosed conflicts of interest • Undisclosed funding • Non- transparent/ incomplete reporting • Simultaneous/ repeated submissions in same or other language • Salami slicing • Presubmission publication • Questionable conferences • Publicizing too early • Self-review • Fake review • Peer review rings • Editor/ reviewer conflicts of interest or plagiarism • Publicizing too early • Multiple publication in same or other language • Exaggerating claims to public / funder • Undisclosed conflicts of interest of post- publication reviewer

5. Importance of research and publication ethics Section 1

6. Research & publication ethics Publication success = Academic success S Publication Metrics and Success on the Academic Job Market van Dijk et al. Current Biology. 2014; 24: R516-R517. • >25,000 researchers in PubMed index • Which factors are linked to academic success? • Number of publications • Impact factor of the journal • Number of citations • University ranking • Male vs. Female

7. Research & publication ethics “Journal Impact Factor” = No. citations in indexed journals ÷ No. articles, past 2 years Original and novel research (“journalism” aspect) Well-designed, well-reported, transparent study News, importance, innovation, timeliness High scientific & technical quality, sound research & publication ethics Logical, engaging contents; correct English & formatting High readability & interest, informative Useful message Clear, real-world relevance, influence 1 2 3 4 What editors are looking for Moving away from IF: Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

8. Research & publication ethics Evaluating journals Journal indicators IPP* (CWTS, Leiden Uni) SNIP* (CWTS, Leiden Uni) Eigenfactor* & SJR* (SCImago) Eigenfactor (Eigenfactor.org) and SCImago journal rank adjust IF for citing journals Source-normalized impact per paper = IPP corrected for discipline Impact per publication = No. of citations to articles in past 3 years ÷ No. of articles Hirsch (h-) index h = No. of articles with at least that No. of citations IF (Thomson Reuters) Impact factor = No. of citations to “items” published in past 2 years ÷ No. of “articles” *Uses SCOPUS index; IF uses WoS; h-index can use WoS, SCOPUS, or Google Scholar

9. Research & publication ethics Evaluating your study 1. Novelty/originality? 2. Real-world significance and importance/interest? 3. How soon can the findings be applied? 4. Is the study discussed in the context of what is known? 5. Potential for changing international practice/policy? 6. Potential for changing thinking in the field? 7. Potential for changing thinking in other fields? 8. Are implications both short term and long term? 9. Methodological quality (study design type, analyses)? 10. Study quality (sample/controls, size, duration, variables)? 11. Are biases minimized so as not to affect validity/reliability? 12. Compliance with…(a) research, trial, publishing ethics? 13. …(b) relevant reporting and data accessibility guidelines? 14. Writing is high quality and suitable for non-specialists?  1 2 3 4 …Be clear on topic/focus, report type, readers, urgency, reach, publishing cost

10. Research & publication ethics S (1) The case of STAP PubMed entry for Nature 2014;505:641–647 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476887 Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency

11. Research & publication ethics (2) Which one is true? Sun S, Zhang G, Wu Z, Shi W, Yang B, Li Y (2014) MicroRNA-302a Functions as a Putative Tumor Suppressor in Colon Cancer by Targeting Akt. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115980. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115980 Published: December 26, 2014 Zhang G-M, Bao C-Y, Wan F-N, Cao D-L, Qin X-J, Zhang H-L, et al. (2015) MicroRNA-302a Suppresses Tumor Cell Proliferation by Inhibiting AKT in Prostate Cancer. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0124410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124410 Published: April 29, 2015

12. Research & publication ethics Singapore Statement on Research Integrity 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010 Principles of research integrity • Honesty in all aspects of research • Accountability in the conduct of research • Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others • Good stewardship of research on behalf of others http://www.singaporestatement.org/downloads/singpore%20statement_A4size.pdf

13. Research & publication ethics Singapore Statement on Research Integrity Principles of research integrity • Integrity; Adherence to regulations • Research methods; Research records; Research findings • Authorship; Publication acknowledgement • Peer review • Conflicts of interest • Public communication • Reporting and responding to irresponsible research practices • Research environments • Societal considerations http://www.singaporestatement.org/downloads/singpore%20statement_A4size.pdf

14. Research & publication ethics MEXT: Importance of ethics training S • Research misconduct o Violates true nature of research/publication o Undermines faith in science; hinders progress o Researchers “negate the significance of their own existence” o Affects researcher, scientific community, institutions, funding organizations • Responsible conduct of research o “Voluntary self-discipline” by researchers o Checking/training…in lab, unit, department/faculty o Institutional culture, management, investigations, sanctions o Prevent misuse of funding MEXT Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research. Adopted 26 August 2014. MEXT Guidelines for the Management and Audit of Public Research Funds at Research Institutions (Implementation Standards) 15 February 2007 (Revision: February 18, 2014)

15. Research & publication ethics S MEXT: “Specific research misconduct” MEXT Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research. Adopted 26 August 2014. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/jinzai/fusei/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/07/13/1359618_01.pdf • Fabrication Making up data or research results • Falsification Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes to change data or results obtained from research activities • Plagiarism Appropriating ideas, analysis, analytical methods, data, research results, research paper(s), or words of other researchers without obtaining permission or giving appropriate credit …in any publications…willfully or owing to gross neglect

16. Research & publication ethics • Not addressing relevant questions • Incomplete literature review to justify study • Inappropriate methodology (low validity/reliability) • Incomplete reporting to allow replication • Clinical trials unpublished Research “waste” is unethical too ~85% of biomedical research is waste Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89

17. Research & publication ethics Studies with participants Participants need to be informed of: • Study objectives (and freedom to leave) • Potential benefits or risks involved • Confidentiality This is usually written informed consent Human safety/benefit, not exploitation Nuremberg Code 1947, Declaration of Helsinki 1964 Templates: http://www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/informed_consent/en/

18. Research & publication ethics Studies with participants Human studies need: • Approval from ethics board (institutional review board, IRB) • For studies with prospective assignment: trial registration before enrollment • Informed consent for enrollment • Informed consent for publication Register trials in advance, at: clinicaltrials.gov; who.int/ictrp/network/en; controlled-trials.com

19. Research & publication ethics Science is “self-correcting”… Responsible conduct of research • Helps society/humanity • Objective search for Truth • Generates/tests hypotheses; adjusts theories • Relies on transparency & reproducibility • Responsible use of resources • Based on trust and honor code • Based on publishing in peer-reviewed journals: Correction notices made public and linked

20. Research & publication ethics Consequences of misconduct Fraudulent articles are rejected or retracted, with permanently linked public Retraction notice …Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism …Authorship, Peer Review, Conflicts of Interest, Patient Consent, Duplicate Publication, etc… Journal may inform institution Consequences • Repay grants • Loss of degree • Suspension, loss of job • Institution warned & punishedViolates trust Wastes resources

21. Research & publication ethics CS Lewis: Responsible conduct of research “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” Follow national laws; also relies on education/training and monitoring by supervisors, collaborators, units, institutions, funders, publishers, academic community, governments, netizens (e.g., “Retraction Watch” and PubPeer websites)…

22. Research & publication ethics • Institutional infrastructure • Attend ethics, research design, statistics courses • Keep all records; check reproducibility • Hold regular ethics discussions and research presentation meetings • Cite all sources; use citation management and text- matching software • Have a mentor; be a mentor • Emphasize quality over quantity • Know policies: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 2015, “For the Sound Development of Science”,* and COPE guidelines… Promote research integrity *https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-kousei/data/rinri_e.pdf

23. Ethics at publication planning Section 2

24. Ethics at publication planning Keep all research records Allow others to verify & replicate your findings Collaborators, Funder, Institution, Peer-reviewed journals, Other researchers • Label samples/records well; full protocols • Keep raw data files; make back-ups Protect personal information • Keep patient data anonymized • Keep patient data secure (password protect files/disks; avoid USB sticks)

25. Ethics at publication planning Declare conflicts of interest (COIs) Financial or personal relationships that may bias your research • Your readers trust that you analyzed your results in an objective and fair manner • Being biased in your analysis deceives your readers and violates their trust

26. Ethics at publication planning Examples of COIs Your spouse works for the drug company (personal COI) You are researching a new drug… • You consult for the drug company • The company funded your study • You own stock in the company (financial COIs)

27. Ethics at publication planning An author works at the company What should you do? • Ensure study design is not unfairly manipulated • Ensure author is blinded during data analysis • Restrict role of the author in manuscript writing • Should be addressed BEFORE study begins! Disclose in cover letter Avoiding COIs

28. Ethics at publication planning The company is funding your research Avoiding COIs What should you do? • State the company’s role in the study design • State the company’s role in data analysis • State the company’s role in manuscript writing • Should be disclosed in the cover letter Some journals will ask you to include a statement such as: “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis”* *http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/ author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html

29. Ethics at publication planning Disclosing COIs Should be disclosed to university ethics committee before obtaining approval Should be disclosed to journal editors and funding bodies Journal editors may or may not publish COIs with your article Not declaring a COI may lead to the rejection/retraction of your paper or suspension/termination of a grant

30. Ethics at publication planning The Wakefield Lancet case • Did not declare payment as expert witness • No ethics board approval • Children (involved in case investigation) were invited, not consecutively recruited http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract http://image.thelancet.com/extras/statement20Feb2004web.pdf

31. Ethics at publication planning Four criteria for authorship 1. Significantly involved in study design, data collection/analysis 2. Writing and revising the manuscript 3. Approval of final version 4. Responsible for the content (accuracy and integrity) http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and- responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

32. Ethics at publication planning Who can be an author? During the study, I had help from 4 people: Supervisor Collaborator Technician Post-doc Study design, data analysis, writing paper Provided materials, reviewed paper Data collection, reviewed paper Study design, data collection/analysis, writing paper

33. Ethics at publication planning No gift/ghost authorship Making someone an author when they do not deserve it (friends, colleagues, etc.) Gift authorship • Trying to make paper more prestigious by adding a “big name”, even without permission • Adding the department head to every paper from their department • Thanking someone for a contributed material Not making someone an author when they do deserve it Ghost authorship • Hiding conflict of interest by excluding an author (e.g., company employee); hide contribution by junior members (e.g., students) [People who helped write the paper should be included in the Acknowledgements or else they are “ghost writers”]

34. Ethics at publication planning Acknowledgments Nugraha et al. Biomaterials. 2011; 32: 6982–6994. Thank those who have made positive contributions, including editing Funding agencies (some journals have a separate Funding section)

35. Ethics of reporting Section 3

36. Ethics of reporting Need for reproducibility Transparency for verification: It needs to be clear how your study was done

37. Ethics of reporting How does your study contribute to your field? What did you find? What did you do? Why did you do the study?Introduction Methods Results & Discussion (IMRaD) Complete reporting Participants/materials, appropriate techniques, appropriate analyses (full protocol online) Including unexpected/negative results; data records & accessibility! Including similarities and differences, limitations After doing a thorough literature review

38. Ethics of reporting PRISMA Systematic reviews & Meta-analyses STROBE Observational studies CARE Case reports CONSORT Randomized controlled clinical trials ARRIVE Animal studies http://www.equator-network.org/ International biomedical reporting guidelines

39. Ethics of reporting Data manipulation Never Fabricate data Move data on a graph Manipulate data/images Hide bad results Explain if outliers are excluded; try to explain outliers

40. Ethics of reporting Altering images What kind of changes can be made to images? Overall brightness and contrast, as long as it does not obscure or remove information from the original image Rossner and Yamada. J Cell Biol. 2004; 166: 11–15. You cannot: • Enhance brightness/contrast of only part of an image • Crop out or remove “unwanted” parts State what you did; keep original files

41. Ethics of reporting Share negative results Negative results are useful? Yes! • Allows complete evaluation of your study • Prevents others from repeating those experiments • Allows others to modify those experiments • Prevents funding agencies from wasting money Supplementary info; Data repositories / Data journals

42. Ethics of reporting Text plagiarism Making readers think other people’s words or ideas are your own Copying published text without “ ” or indenting (even with a citation) Stating ideas of someone else without citing the source Avoid self-plagiarism…If you use text that you have published before, you need to paraphrase, use “ ”, or indent, and give a citation; …or else, readers think you are presenting new ideas

43. Ethics of reporting What if you want to directly quote someone? Direct quotes Humanities • Often acceptable • Include text in “quotation marks” or in an indented paragraph (block quote) • Use bibliographic footnote and page number Sciences • Usually not acceptable Reusing published tables/figures needs copyright permission

44. Ethics of reporting Expressing published ideas using different words Paraphrasing Tips on paraphrasing: • Draw logic diagrams and then use English • Write the text first in first language, and then later translate back into English • Verbally explain ideas to a colleague • Always cite the source in your notes • Summarize/name and cite published methods • Think of where the paraphrase goes (Introduction vs Discussion)

45. Ethics of reporting Good paraphrasing 24. Li et al. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e68372. “The magnitude of the change in carbon storage depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are altered over time under different land uses.” The size of the carbon storage change depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are changed over time under different land uses.24 How differing land uses gradually affect biological, chemical, or physical processes changes how much carbon can be stored.24 • Nouns  verbs • Prepositional phrases  Adverbs • Passive  Active voice • Synonyms, word order • Synonyms, word order

46. Ethics of reporting Good paraphrasing How to vary sentence structure and avoid “listing” Change voice, rhythm, style Separate/join sentences Discourse markers Coincidentally; Also in agreement; Indeed Join 2 sentences (semicolon, colon for a reason/list, or by subordination); alternate short/long sentences Active  passive, negative  positive, invert word or sentence order Sentence logic Either/or; Neither/nor; Not only,…but also Introductory phrase According to X’s method,…; In X’s study,…; X showed/reported…; When X… Change word class An altered direction -> A directional change Prefer to summarize several sources and find relationships

47. Ethics of reporting Always cite • Cite at end of relevant word/phrase/clause/sentence: Harvard = (Name, year) or Vancouver = Ref. No. • Can put Author name in sentence, but avoid “lists”; name up to 2 surnames (but if >2 authors, only “Author1 et al”); for Harvard style, papers with the same first author and year use alphabetical order of the next author and a/b/c: “Author1 et al (2016a, 2016b, 2016c) reported…” • Quote if using exact words or sentence (“ ”) + citation • Prefer paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing

48. Ethics of reporting Summarizing sources (1) Author1 et al. 2010: Sentences can be grouped together or split apart in research writing, but be careful that the variables used are all consistent. (2) Author2 et al. 2015: Authors of scientific papers should not change the wording of important variables in their study question and answer, lest they give the impression of giving the wrong answer to the wrong question. (3) Author3 et al. 2016: Our advice for scientists is to keep all terms consistent throughout their manuscripts. => When preparing their research manuscripts, authors should keep all terms and variables consistent (1-3).

49. Ethics of reporting Synthesizing information (1) Author1 et al. 2015: Postgraduate authors of manuscripts reported in this survey that they need adequate writing training at university. (2) Author2 et al. 2015: Postgraduate research students who followed a mentorship scheme increased their efficacy in writing research papers for journal publication, by as much as 30%. (3) Author3 et al. 2016: PhD and Master students in our study improved their writing test scores by 20% to 50% after the seminar course but by only 5% after the mentoring scheme. => University postgraduates have reported wanting more training in manuscript writing (1), but whether this is best done via mentoring or seminars is unclear (2,3). …for an Introduction

50. Ethics of reporting Summarizing and synthesizing Find common themes/variables Find logical relationships: similarities/differences, exemplification, cause/effect Check which section of IMRaD; check study type Be clear if facts or opinions Use appropriate reporting verbs (state, conclude, suggest, argue, claim) and certainty verbs (is, must, will, could…) Group similar references together; name names if needed Cite and reference well

51. Please choose which sentence below is the best paraphrase for this sentence: “Overall, the most common reasons cited by the tourists for travel abroad were sightseeing (67%), visiting relatives (59%), and luxury shopping (40%). However, among the Chinese respondents, the most common reason was luxury shopping (75%).” A. People often go on overseas trips for sightseeing, visiting relatives, and, especially among Chinese tourists, luxury shopping (Jackson et al., 2016). B. Jackson et al. (2016) found that although sightseeing was the most common reason for international travel overall (67%), luxury shopping was the most common reason given by Chinese tourists (75%). C. Most of the tourists overseas who go luxury shopping come from China (Jackson et al., 2016). Activity

52. Ethics at manuscript submission Section 4

53. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Sequential submission Author Editor Reviewer 1 wk 4 wks2 wks Total ~2 months 3 journals = over 6 months! Do not submit to multiple journals to save time!

54. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Multiple submission Author Editor2 Reviewer2 3 journals = ~2 months! Editor1 Reviewer1 Editor3 Reviewer3

55. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Why is it unethical? Wastes editors’ time & resources • After first acceptance, have to withdraw submission from the others • Damages your reputation with publishers Duplicate publication • It will be noticed in the field; copyright problems • One or both articles may be retracted • Wastes time and damages your reputation with both the publisher and your peers

56. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission You can submit to another journal only if:  You have been rejected by the first journal  You have formally withdrawn the submission When can you submit to another journal?

57. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Can you publish a paper for a different audience? What do you need to do? 1. Obtain permission from the first publisher 2. Tell journal editor of second journal: – You already obtained permission to re-publish – Why necessary to publish for a different audience 3. Cite the original publication Note: many journal editors will not be interested in publishing non-original articles; it is better to write a new paper and present a different angle Some journals ask you to declare similar material you have already published/submitted

58. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Can you publish a paper translated into English? What do you need to do? 1. Obtain permission from the first publisher 2. Tell journal editor of English journal: – You already obtained permission to re-publish – Why necessary to publish in English 3. Cite the original publication Note: many journal editors will not be interested in publishing non-original articles

59. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Salami publishing One study 4 publications Same sample population Same controls Experiments concurrent Dependent results  Distinct populations  Different controls  Experiments sequential  Independent results One larger paper will have more impact in the field and more citations! Readers will not have all relevant information to critically evaluate the study

60. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Choose your journal early! Author guidelines • Manuscript structure • Word limits, References • Format, Procedures Aims and scope • Topics • Readership • Be sure to emphasize • Check journal requirements • Check relevant references • Check novelty, importance & usefulness

61. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector Insert your proposed abstract/title or keywords

62. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Filter/sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor • Indexed in SCI • Open access • Publishing frequency Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector Journal’s aims & scope, IF, and publication frequency • Author guidelines • Journal website Similar abstracts

63. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission THINK Trusted and appropriate? SUBMIT Only if OK thinkchecksubmit.org CHECK Do you know the journal? Trustworthy journals

64. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Publication models Subscription- based • Mostly free for the author • Reader has to pay Open access • Free for the reader • Author usually has to pay Hybrid • Subscription-based journal • Has open access options

65. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Open access models Green (subscription journals) • Can self-archive accepted version in personal, university, or repository website • May allow final version to be archived • May have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed Gold (author/institution pays) • Free for public on publication • Author might keep © but may pay (e.g., US$1000–5000)

66. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Questionable journals Some Open Access journals are not good Easy way to get money from authors • Promise quick and easy publication • Often ask for a low “submission/handling” fee • May copy name or website of real journal; false IF • May not exist, or may be of low quality; may charge fee to claim back your article if not yet accepted • Beware of spam e-mails soliciting authors/reviewers/editors! If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/ Also check DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals

67. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Questionable journals Website Unprofessional, language errors, adverts, false contacts, predatory conferences Editorial board Unknown, non-existent, false, says “Coming soon” or “international” but not really Indexed Not indexed by common databases, or false claims of indexing Articles No articles or “Articles soon”, they contain obvious errors or are unrelated to journal scope, they are not archived well Fees Charged on submission !!! Not published on time or regularly, Pretends to be American/international, Launches 100s of new “journals” at the same time…

68. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission Reputable publisher Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS, etc. Clear contact details Editorial board International and familiar Indexed Indexed by common databases Authors Do you recognize the authors? Fees Paid only after acceptance; clearly stated in website Trustworthy journals

69. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics at manuscript submission COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/ WAME guidelines http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

70. Ethics of peer review and publicity Section 5

71. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review The peer review process Accepted— publication! EditorAuthor Peer review Reject Results novel? Topic relevant? Clear English? Properly formatted? Revision • New experiments • Improve readability • Add information

72. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Peer review models Blinded/ masked? • Single-blind: Reviewers’ names not revealed to authors • Double-/Triple-blind: Anonymous • Open: All names revealed • Transparent: Reviews published with paper • Fast Track: Expedited if public emergency

73. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Peer review models Other models • Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed along by 1st journal • Portable: Manuscript & reviews passed by author to new journal • Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with each other • Post-publication: Online public or peer review • Pre-submission (portable): Reviews passed to editor at submission

74. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Dear Dr Struman, Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of ICT in Glasgow prognostic scoring in patients undergoing curative resection for liver metastases,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the International Medical ICT Journal. The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) is of value for a variety of tumours. Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of the GPS in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but few studies have performed such an investigation for patients undergoing liver resection for liver metastases. Furthermore, there are currently no studies that have examined the prognostic value of the modified GPS (mGPS) using an ICT platform in these patients. The present study evaluated the mGPS using ICT in terms of its prognostic value for postoperative death in patients undergoing liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases. A total of 318 patients with breast cancer liver metastases who underwent hepatectomy over a 15-year period were included in this study. The mGPS was calculated using ICT based on the levels of C-reactive protein and albumin, and the disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival rates were evaluated in relation to the mGPS. Prognostic significance was retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, the results showed a significant association between cancer-specific survival and the mGPS and carcinoembryonic antigen level, and a higher mGPS was associated with increased aggressiveness of liver recurrence and poorer survival in these patients. This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management. Give the background to the research What was done and what was found Implications & interest to journal’s readers Cover letter to the editor Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information

75. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Cover letter to the editor Declare in your cover letter… Not submitted to other journals Funding, donations All authors agree and contributed Original and unpublished State potential conflicts of interest Research ethics Clinical journals: authorship, COI, IRB & consent, CONSORT,© form

76. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Cover letter to the editor We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Must include:  Declarations related to publication ethics  Source of funding  Conflicts of interest Ethics Funding Conflicts of interest

77. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Cover letter to the editor Other important information:  Recommended reviewers/contact info  Author’s contact information We would like to recommend the following reviewers to evaluate our manuscript: 1. Reviewer 1 and contact information 2. Reviewer 2 and contact information 3. Reviewer 3 and contact information 4. Reviewer 4 and contact information Please address all correspondence to: Reviewers Contact information Can also exclude reviewers

78. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Recommending reviewers Where to find them? From your reading/references, networking at conferences How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers Who to avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years), researchers from your university International list: 1 or 2 from Asia, Europe, the Americas, Australasia You must give correct contact information!

79. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Be careful who you recommend!

80. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Reviewers’ responsibilities If you are a reviewer 1. Declare conflicts of interest 2. Decline if no time or wrong area of expertise; or keep to deadline 3. Do not delay review/publication on purpose 4. Keep courteous in the review 5. Keep the grant/manuscript confidential; destroy/delete after review 6. Do not use any of the information Based on: http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines

81. Reviewer behaving badly http://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/12/dear-peer-reviewer-stole-paper-authors-worst-nightmare/

82. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene. Reasons why reviewers might make these comments  Current results are not appropriate for the scope or impact factor of the journal  Reviewer is being “unfair” “Unfair” reviewer comments

83. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review What you should do First, contact the journal editor if you feel the reviewer is being unfair  Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit • Prepare point-by-point responses • Include the original manuscript ID number  Formally withdraw submission and resubmit to a journal with a different scope or lower impact factor • Revise & reformat according to the author guidelines “Unfair” reviewer comments

84. Coverage and Staffing Plan Ethics of peer review Public responsibility For public material/interviews: 1. Limit professional comments to your recognized expertise 2. Clearly distinguish professional comments from opinions 3. Be accurate and clear; watch out for © 4. Do not overgeneralize or sensationalize 5. Do not discuss unpublished research or work still being peer reviewed 6. Even after journal publication, respect embargoes Based on: http://www.singaporestatement.org/downloads/singpore%20statement_A4size.pdf

85. Potential ethical problems on the path to publication Preparation Journal Selection Writing Submission Peer Review Publication • No ethics board approval • Human trial unregistered • No consent • Citation stacking • Fabrication • Falsification • Questionable journals • Hijacked journals • Questionable publishers • Guest/gift/ ghost authorship • Plagiarism • Undisclosed conflicts of interest • Undisclosed funding • Non- transparent/ incomplete reporting • Simultaneous/ repeated submissions in same or other language • Salami slicing • Presubmission publication • Questionable conferences • Publicizing too early • Self-review • Fake review • Peer review rings • Editor/ reviewer conflicts of interest or plagiarism • Publicizing too early • Multiple publication in same or other language • Exaggerating claims to public / funder • Undisclosed conflicts of interest of post- publication reviewer ThinkCheckSubmit.org

86. Research and publishing ethics Submissions No plagiarism No data manipulation Authorship Submit to only one journal; do not republish an article; no salami; do not manipulate peer review Paraphrase/summarize/synthesize & cite all sources Do not fabricate or falsify data Do not manipulate parts of images (1) Study design or data acquisition/analysis; (2) Writing/revising; (3) Approval; (4) Accountability Conflicts of interest State funding source and any financial/personal relationships that could bias the work Safety Ethics board approval; for humans: signed consent, data privacy; animal & environmental safety http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and- contributors.html

87. S Be an ethical researcher and author Your goal is not only to publish but also to contribute to society  Importance of research and publication ethics  Ethics at publication planning  Ethics of reporting  Ethics at submission  Ethics of peer review and publicity

88. Thank you! Any questions? Follow us on Twitter @EdanzEditing Like us on Facebook facebook.com/EdanzEditing Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/keio1612 Trevor Lane: tlane@edanzgroup.com

Add a comment