Authors and publication practices

Although authors are usually considered to be the main perpetrators of research and publication misconduct, any person involved in the process has the potential to offend. Editors may breach ethical standards particularly with respect to conflicts of interest. In the same way that authors are now required to declare competing interests, notably commercial affiliations, financial interests and personal connections, so must editors. Editors can influence the chances of acceptance or rejection of a paper by reviewer selection. Reviewers should also be ready to disclose conflicts of interest. They must ensure that their reviews are evidence based and free from destructive criticism driven by self interest. It seems likely that ultimately we will progressively move towards 'open' peer review in which both the authors and the reviewers are known to each other. There is an urgent need for increased transparency of the relationship between editors and owners. The events of the last few years indicate that unless this interface is fully understood by all parties, conflicts may arise. There is also a need for a radical overhaul in the relationship between journals, journal editors and the biomedical industry. It is now increasingly accepted that all clinical trials should be registered in a centrally held database and that protocols should include the primary and secondary outcome measures and the intended approach to data analysis thereby avoiding opportunistic post hoc analyses. However, the even more radical proposal that journals should cease to publish clinical trials sponsored by industry deserves wider debate.     

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.     

Ensuring the Quality,Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.     

Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors’ suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors’ message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process—especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory—may constitute a violation of authors’ rights.     

儿童父母拒绝与同伴拒绝的关系:问题行为的中介作用和家庭环境纷杂度的调节作用

为探讨儿童父母拒绝、问题行为、家庭环境纷杂度和同伴拒绝的关系,该研究构建了一个有调节的中介模型。采用自我报告、母亲报告和同伴提名的方式对济南市三所小学4年级至6年级共307名被试进行测查,结果表明：（1）父母拒绝对儿童的同伴拒绝和外化问题行为均有显著的正向预测作用;（2）儿童的外化问题行为在父母拒绝与同伴拒绝之间起部分中介作用;（3）家庭环境纷杂度调节了父母拒绝通过儿童的外化问题行为影响同伴拒绝的中介过程的前半路径,即低家庭环境纷杂度可以作为一种保护因素,降低遭受父母拒绝的儿童出现外化问题行为的风险。     

Editors As Authors: Publication Trends Of Articles Authored By JABA Editors.

Journal editors are gatekeepers; they review and shape the work of others, and influence the journal's direction and quality. They also contribute to the body of knowledge within a field as authors. The author role of editors of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is described. Annual publication rates of the 55 former and current editors and associate editors are presented and discussed.     

Invisible overtures: fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias

Four studies demonstrated that fears of rejection prompt individuals to exhibit a signal amplification bias, whereby they perceive that their overtures communicate more romantic interest to potential partners than is actually the case. The link between rejection anxieties and the bias was evident regardless of whether fears of rejection were assessed in terms of chronic attachment anxiety or were induced by reflection on a previous rejection experience. Mediation analyses suggested that the bias stems in part from an expected-augmenting process, whereby persons with strong fears of rejection incorrectly assume that the recipient of their overtures will take their inhibitions into account when interpreting their behavior. Implications for understanding the link between attachment anxiety and loneliness and for designing social skills interventions are discussed.     

Publishing in Journals Outside the Box: Attaining Mainstream Prominence Requires Demonstrations of Mainstream Relevance

Primary pediatric medical care is as mainstream as any major cultural practice in the USA. Thus, publishing behavior analytic papers that pertain to problems that present in pediatric settings in pediatric medical journals is one route to mainstream relevance. With sufficient numbers of such papers, it could even lead to prominence. This article describes examples of publishing in pediatric journals and some lessons I learned from the experience. For example, (1) all child behavior problems that present in pediatric settings are of social importance but most are high-frequency, low-intensity problems that are not necessarily exotic or representative of serious pathology, and they usually respond to straightforward behavioral applications; (2) it is usually best to use a “colloquialized version of learning theory” when writing for and speaking to pediatric providers (and the families for whom they provide care); (3) pediatricians often have limited knowledge about behavior analytic research designs; and (4) when submissions are rejected by pediatric journals, the rejection can be exploited as an opportunity to educate pediatric editors and reviewers.     

Exploring Why and How Journal Editors Retract Articles: Findings From a Qualitative Study

Editors have a responsibility to retract seriously flawed articles from their journals. However, there appears to be little consistency in journals’ policies or procedures for this. In a qualitative study, we therefore interviewed editors of science journals using semi-structured interviews to investigate their experience of retracting articles. We identified potential barriers to retraction, difficulties in the process and also sources of support and encouragement. Our findings have been used as the basis for guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics.     

Temporal dissociation between category-based and item-based processes in rejecting distractors

Presenting a target-like distractor in an RSVP task deteriorates the detection of a trailing target, because the visual system has difficulties in rejecting the erroneously accepted distractor. We investigated whether the rejection process is influenced by observers’ knowledge regarding possible distractors. Observers identified a letter (target) embedded in a stream of line patterns, rejecting a preceding distractor (digit). We informed the observers about either the category of distractors (“digit”) or the identity of the distractor (e.g., “5”). The distractors with certain distractor–target lags increased identification errors, indicating that the distractor rejection process temporarily interfered with the target identification. When the observers knew the distractor identity, the rejection process started later than when they knew only the distractor category. These results suggest that the rejection process may operate at either the category or the individual-item level; however, the setting of the rejection level is not under the observers’ control.     

Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system

The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system. The author is a Senior Research Scientist & Biostatistician, Child Study Center and Department of Psychiatry in the Yale University School of Medicine. Note: The main points of this report were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Baltimore, Maryland, on February 9, 1996.