 |
ARTICLE |
Fraud, duplicate publication, animal welfare violations, author
disputes: these words and phrases evoke different responses from
different people. However, one common response that should be evoked in
a scientist is revulsion. Truth and honesty are the underpinnings of
scientific inquiry. Anything less is unacceptable. In fact, without
complete and utter adherence to the principles of ethical behavior, all
scientists, and science itself, are threatened.
Why the gloomy introduction? There has, unfortunately, been an
unsettling increase in the number of ethical issues confronting the
Publications Committee of the American Physiological Society. Some of
these issues have already been discussed in two APS editorials (1, 3). In addition to those mentioned above, these issues involve unacknowledged redundant publication of tables and figures, conflict of interest, improper use and/or acquisition of human material, and plagiarism. In some cases, the offending parties are
unaware that, for example, all authors of a manuscript should be
familiar with its contents, or that erasure of an aberrant datum
or two is acceptable only as long as Chauvenet's criterion can
reasonably be applied. In these cases, journal Editors and society
publishing programs can play an educational role with inexperienced
authors. In other cases, however, the infractions are blatant and
cannot be explained by ignorance, nor can they be accepted as
carelessness. Examples of this sort include: 1) republication of previously published figures; 2)
submission of manuscripts without the approval of
all authors; and 3) presentation of the same data
with altered experimental conditions in response to a reviewer's
comment in a previous and unsuccessful submission to a different
journal. In blatant cases of unethical behavior, the authors'
institutions may become involved, performing an inquiry into whether
and to what extent there was unethical behavior. At APS we have
procedures delineated in our Ethical Policies and Procedures document,
which can be found on the inside back cover of every journal issue and
on the World Wide Web at http://www.the-aps.org/publications/journals/apsethic.htm. We take ethical issues very seriously, but handle them carefully, because once an institution is involved, a scientist's career is on
the line. If, as a reader, reviewer, or author, you perceive unethical
conduct having to do with a journal article, please contact the
appropriate editor/associate editor, who will in turn initiate the
established procedures for dealing with such issues.
Traditionally, the orderly process of scientific inquiry requires a
hypothesis to be generated, then tested by experimentation, the results
and conclusions packaged in a manuscript, the paper submitted to a
journal for peer review by experts in the field, and finally revised
where appropriate. In this modern era, many scientists now engage in
complementary discovery-driven research, namely, making observations in
the absence of specific hypothesis that will lead to new scientific
ideas. It is no surprise that this approach culminates in a manuscript.
For science to progress, it must be communicated. The benefits and
objectivity of peer review have been argued, but there can be no
dispute that peer review adds value to a scientific publication by
culling papers with poor design, identifying procedural flaws such as
inadequate statistical validation, ascertaining that the conclusions
reached are supported by the data, and, albeit in a relatively small
fraction of submitted manuscripts, calling attention to potentially
fraudulent data. No matter how objective and how self-critical a
scientist is, it is hard to be totally dispassionate about one's own
work. But this is also positive: the commitment, the enthusiasm, and the intensity and drive to seek answers to important and difficult questions differentiates good science from mediocre science. Peer review can and should provide an additional level of detached objectivity to a body of work. In doing so, peer review enhances published research's import and quality. This is important, given the
greater public access to the scientific literature, previously the
realm of the specialists. More importantly, and especially when the
work has clinical ramifications, peer review ensures that false hopes
and expectations are not raised when the work is misrepresented or
exaggerated consciously or unconsciously by the authors.
Historically, the pressures that ensue from public criticism of a
scientist's intellectual endeavors can be immense, particularly if the
work promulgates thoughts that challenge existing paradigms. Furthermore, these issues are magnified when productivity is coupled to
institutional promotions, acquisition of research funding, and with
increasing nonacademic demands. Perhaps the stresses that result from
such a competitive environment contribute to a person's deviation from
proper ethical behavior. But it is precisely adherence to highly
evolved, definitive standards that ensures that valid science is
performed and disseminated in the public domain. Even one violation of
high moral conduct cannot be tolerated, especially in light of the
ever-increasing availability of newly released information that is
accessible to scientists and nonscientists alike.
Scientists are explorers, pioneers, and purveyors of the unknown,
funded in large measure by money obtained from nonscientists. The
testimonies of these voyages into fresh frontiers are essential and
are recorded in the publications of the scientist. As Walter B. Cannon wrote: "The discoverer in science may justifiably entertain the deeply gratifying thought that work well done, observations carefully made and recorded, will ultimately combine with other observations, perhaps made long afterward, in forming the body of
truth. ... An investigator may never see the synthesis which brings
his work into its relations with the work of others, but from
historical evidence he can be assured that such may be the destiny of
his observations" (2).
The APS publication program is designed to provide a context in which
only the very best work is distributed to the world community. But no
matter how many checks and balances are put into place, ultimately the
responsibility for honesty lies with the scientist. This problem of
untoward ethical behavior in publishing can be minimized and I
believe eliminated if all of us reflect upon why we chose to pursue a
career in investigative science and if we all take the time to educate
ourselves and our students in these matters. Formative influences are
strong. We are all citizens of science and must do everything possible
to contribute to and uphold the integrity of the enterprise. The
marvel, the sparkle of witnessing a new aspect of nature unfolding is
boundless. What a tragedy if this glory is ruined by misbehavior. We
are given full liberty in our scientific inquiries; therefore, I
contend that it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to preserve the sanctity of the work.