Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 25;8(11):e021282.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021282.

Biomedical authors' awareness of publication ethics: an international survey

Sara Schroter  1 , Jason Roberts  2 , Elizabeth Loder  1   3   4 , Donald B Penzien  5 , Sarah Mahadeo  6 , Timothy T Houle  7
Affiliations

Biomedical authors' awareness of publication ethics: an international survey

Sara Schroter et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: The extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.

Design: Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting and participants: Corresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.

Main outcome measures: Perceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).

Results: 4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.

Conclusions: We found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Keywords: ethics (see medical ethics); medical ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: SS is a full-time employee of the BMJ Publishing Group and has access to all submission data and regularly undertakes research with its authors and reviewers. SM is a former employee of BMJ Publishing Group. EL receives salary support from The BMJ for her services as head of research. This is paid to her employing institution (the Brigham and Women’s Physician Organization). None of the authors work directly for BMJ Open or are involved in the decision-making process for articles submitted to BMJ Open. This paper was sent out for peer review in the usual way and treated in the same way as all submissions to the journal. TTH, JR and DBP have no relevant conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Responses by country of work for the top 20 contributing countries.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Prior publication vignette response.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Author omission vignette response.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Self-plagiarism vignette response.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Honorary authorship vignette response.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Conflicts of interest vignette response.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen AC, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey. PLoS One 2013;8:e73381 10.1371/journal.pone.0073381 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tijdink JK, de Rijcke S, Vinkers CH, et al. . [Publication pressure and citation stress; the influence of achievement indicators on scientific practice]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2014;158:A7147. - PubMed
    1. Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2014;9:64–71. 10.1177/1556264614552421 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tijdink JK, Schipper K, Bouter LM, et al. . How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu Y, Yang Z, Fan D. Professional title promotion among clinicians: a cross-sectional survey. The Lancet 2016;388:S31 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31958-4 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources