Information på svenska  om god forskningssed i publicering och kommunikation

Authorship of academic publications

To be listed as an author of an academic publication signifies recognition of one’s contribution as well as responsibility for the content. Practice varies between disciplines and research environments, but the criteria stated in the so-called Vancouver recommendations constitute a good point of departure. To avoid conflicts later on when collaborating, it is advisable to agree on authorship already at the very onset of the project. Who are to be listed as co-authors? How will the work be divided? (See for example this advice). A person who has contributed to the work without meeting the criteria for authorship should not be listed as an author but should instead be thanked in the publication.

The UK Research Integrity Office provides helpful guidance on authorship, and the Codex website presents further guidance and key documents concerning authorship.

Pre-registration for increased transparency and reliability

It is sometimes appropriate to pre-register the planned research. Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly available database before the study begins, but pre-registration may also be suitable for research of other kinds and in other research areas (see for example this text discussing and describing pre-registration for research in psychology). Pre-registration is especially applicable for studies aiming to test a hypothesis, rather than studies with exploratory ambitions. To document in advance the intended hypothesis, planned setup, methods of analysis, and so on, increases transparency and makes it more difficult to inappropriately adapt the study to the results obtained. Some journals also require pre-registration as a condition for publication.

Review related to publication

All research that is published should undergo some kind of review in order to ensure that it meets the standards of the specific field.

Traditionally, academic publication has been characterised by pre-publication “peer review”, in other words other researchers competent in the area of research review the manuscript before it is accepted for publication. There are various types of review – it can be open, single blind or double blind; reviews can be published or not, and more.

Review may also take place after publication. This is the basic idea behind the publication of so-called preprints, but also other publications can be reviewed retroactively (PubPeer is an example of a platform for post-publication review). The advantage of preprint publication is that results are shared more quickly, on the other hand, there is a risk that results that do not hold after the subsequent review may nevertheless be spread in society (see this article for a discussion on benefits and risks of preprints).

Also, the traditional peer review system has its flaws and challenges. For example, it has been criticized because it can be manipulated (see the Codex website where a number of guiding documents can be found). The Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers   from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) describes different kinds of peer review, and lists general principles for review. 

What matters is that the publication process is clear, transparent and fulfils its purpose. It is of course not acceptable to provide deceptive information or to withhold relevant information about how a publication was reviewed. You can find more information what is important to keep in mind here. 

Important to watch out for ”predatory journals”

The growing range of publication channels gives more possibilities for researchers to reach out with their research. However, it also leaves more space to rogue actors, including those who publish so-called “predatory journals”. There is no established definition of what counts as a “predatory journal”, but the following description captures some of the most central features: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” (Grudniewicz et al Nature 2019)

There are many lists of tips to avoid predatory journals, such as this one published in University Affairs and this one published in Toxicologic Pathology.. The campaign Think, Check, Submit also provides guidance. A report published by the InterAcademy Partnership descbribes predatory journals and conferences, and analyses the driving forces behind them.

All interaction with predatory journals should be avoided. The ALLEA Code presents establishing or supporting predatory journals as one of its examples of unacceptable research practices (see section 3.1). Publications in predatory journals may be excluded in the assessments of researchers’ academic qualifications and may cause reputational harm. Researchers have a personal responsibility to carefully control journals and publishers in order to avoid involvement in such contexts. The Stockholm University Library gives tips and may be contacted for support concerning choice of journals for publication, contact publish@su.se.

Undue pressure to publish or refrain from publishing

Researchers may be put under pressure to publish results not supported by the research, or to refrain from publishing actual results of their research. It may concern results to the advantage or disadvantage of certain actors (such as funders or sponsors) or results which are perceived as offensive or problematic (see for example Good Research Practice by the Swedish Research Council, section 2.2.4). If you find yourself in such a situation, you are welcome to turn to the ethics support function at the Research, Engagement and Innovation Support Office (etik@fs.su.se). 

Ethical aspects of Open Science

Openness throughout the research process is an explicit goal for Stockholm University (see information on Open Science at Stockholm University here), and the SUHF National roadmap for open science (in Swedish). The concept Open Science commonly includes several parts, such as open access publishing, open research data, open source, open educational resources and citizen science (see the Government’s research bill 2020, section 10.2.2). The overarching aim of open science is to increase access to and involvement in research, and to improve research quality and efficiency through transparency and reproducibility. 

Open Science may entail some difficulties from an ethics perspective, for example in relation to making research data accessible. In some cases there may be reasons not to publish data openly – in accordance with the guiding motto as open as possible and as closed as necessary (see the ALLEA Code, section 2.5). Reasons not to make research data openly available can be that they include personal data, that they constitute so called dual use products, or other concerns or legal obstacles. For further guidance, see information here.

Communicating research and media involvement

To an increasing extent, research is also communicated in other ways than in academic publications. An important task for researchers is to contribute with their competence vis-à-vis decision makers and in the public debate. This may give rise to ethical questions concerning how and in what circumstances it is appropriate to be involved. If you have such questions, you are welcome to contact the ethics support function at the Office for Research, Engagement and Innovation Services.

The Communications Office at Stockholm University offers advice to researchers on how to reach out with their research through the media, how to use social media, how to deal with offers to write editorial content in advertisement supplements, as well as other support on communication. 

This document (published by the Lund University Ethics Council) provides general ethical guidance on researchers’ contacts with the media. 

Contact

If you have questions or need support on matters concerning good research practice in publication or communication, you are welcome to contact the ethics support function at the Office for Research, Engagement and Innovation Services: etik@fs.su.se. For questions concerning open science or the handling of research data, contact the Research Data Management Team: opendata@su.se. For other questions related to publication, contact publish@su.se. For support on communication, contact komrad@su.se and for support on contacts with the media, contact press@su.se.