Research misconduct policies of scientific journals.
The purpose of this study was to gather information on the misconduct policies of scientific journals. We contacted editors from a random sample of 399 journals drawn from the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We received 197 responses (49.4% response rate): 54.8% had a policy, and 47.7% had a formal (written) policy; 28.9% had a policy that only outlined procedures for handling misconduct, 15.7% had a policy that only defined misconduct, 10.2% had a policy that included both a definition and procedures; 26.9% of journals had a policy that was generated by the publisher, 13.2% had a policy that was generated by the journal, and 14.7% had a policy that was generated by another source, such as a professional association. We analyzed the relationship between having a policy and impact factor, field of science, publishing house, and nationality. Impact factor was the only variable with a statistically significant association with having a policy. Impact factor was slightly positively associated with whether or not the publisher had a policy, with an odds ratio of 1.49 (P < .0004) per 10 units increase in the impact factor, with a 95% confidence interval (1.20, 1.88). Our research indicates that more than half of scientific journals have developed misconduct policies, but that most of these policies do not define research misconduct and most of these policies were not generated by the journal.
Resnik
David B
DB
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. resnikd@niehs.nih.gov
Peddada
Shyamal
S
Brunson
Winnon
W
D016001:Confidence Intervals; D016265:Conflict of Interest; D035081:Editorial Policies; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006801:Humans; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D016015:Logistic Models; D016017:Odds Ratio; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000941:ethics*; D011643:Publishing / Q000941:ethics