FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4251713873> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4251713873 endingPage "1696" @default.
• W4251713873 startingPage "1695" @default.
• W4251713873 abstract "Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryVolume 36, Issue 7 p. 1695-1696 EditorialFree Access Fostering integrity in scientific research and publishing First published: 28 June 2017 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3841Citations: 1 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in April that should give all scientists—young and old—a reason to pause and reflect on their chosen profession. The report, titled “Fostering Integrity in Research” 1 describes several practices that, if not executed thoughtfully and with care, can have a potentially lasting and detrimental impact on a professional career and the reputation of the supporting institution. The issue is scientific integrity. While the emphasis may vary depending on stakeholder, scientific integrity embodies behaviors and practices free of personal and institutional bias and other forms of research misconduct. Rigorous adherence to the scientific method is fundamental to sound science and is founded on observation data collection, hypothesis testing, and culminating in the publication of quality science in peer-reviewed journals. The erosion of scientific integrity, rightly noted by NAS, places the future in jeopardy. Scientific integrity appears to be eroding at such an alarming rate in several disciplines that NAS is recommending the creation of a US Research Integrity Advisory Board. The approach is similar to that adopted by the Swedish government in 2010 following controversial claims of scientific misconduct at reputable institutions, several of which have yet to be resolved. The NAS has put forth additional recommendations, including a call to scientific enterprises and publishers such as SETAC Publications, to more aggressively ensure that the peer-review process and resulting publications are founded on “reliable knowledge.” At Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) we rarely encounter the 3 most often cited examples of research misconduct—data fabrication, research falsification, and plagiarism. On the rare occasions when reviewers, senior editors, or members of our dedicated editorial boards raise concerns, plagiarism is the most common form of misconduct. That said, the instances of plagiarism are more a lack of awareness on the part of authors of what constitutes plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is the most common form, particularly with authors whose native language is not English; they tend to reuse text that was deemed acceptable in a prior publication. Other transgressions, however, are not so easily identified and resolved. The NAS points to several research falsehoods similarly detrimental to careers, institutions, and the integrity of the entire scientific community: misleading statistical analyses; honorary authorship, trading data for authorship, or denying authorship to those deserving; failure to make data and other pertinent information available to reviewers; abusive or irresponsible publication practices by journal editors and peer reviewers; and failure to ensure authors have made a significant and unique intellectual contribution. At the core of scientific publishing globally is reliance on a volunteer corps of independent reviewers. SETAC Publications strives to confirm 3 reviewers for independent review of submitted manuscripts, but like most journals is often satisfied with securing 2, in part because of the insistence of authors seeking to publish more quickly, and because the growth of peer-reviewed publications has exhausted the availability of experienced reviewers. For publishers and reviewers alike, it is a difficult environment in which to try to slow things down to get things right. Hence, securing “reliable knowledge” turns to automation. Most science publishers, including SETAC, routinely deploy software tools to help editorial offices examine manuscripts for originality. With respect to plagiarism, the findings are clear and violations are handled immediately. Some journals routinely use a statistical peer reviewer/editor for any paper that has significant quantitative analysis as part of its presentation. Methods reviewers are similarly used, as are adherence to standards such as PRISMA, MOOSE, etc. At larger scientific publishers, methods editors and or statistical editors are often paid because they are called upon to look at a lot of manuscripts in relatively short periods of time. Such is not our good fortune and, at SETAC Publications, we must rely heavily on the integrity of authors. We can require assertions about disclosures and authorship, but we cannot monitor for these transgressions closely. Regardless of the challenges, integrity in science and publishing is a responsibility shared by all in the SETAC community. Protecting scientific integrity requires the concerted effort of everyone engaged at each step of the knowledge chain, from the research laboratory, desktop, and field, to peer review and publishing. We support the urgency of NAS's call to research institutions, federal agencies, professional societies, and scientific publications to adopt a clear set of standards that will discourage all forms of research misconduct. SETAC Publications is duty-bound to protect the integrity of the society, and to safeguard the reputations of the thousands of reputable scientists from around the world who have trusted SETAC Publications to publish their research. Both ET&C and IEAM are governed by a continual improvement process with the aim to strengthen and protect the integrity of SETAC's peer review practices and publishing policies. We take the many concerns described in the NAS report seriously. We welcome recommendations from the SETAC community and our readers that will help us to maintain the high standards of scientific excellence that we demand of each other in our global environmental science community. G. Allen Burton, Jr. SETAC Editor-in-Chief Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Richard J. Wenning SETAC Editor-in-Chief Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Data Accessibility REFERENCE 1The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [cited 2017 April 20]. Available from: www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/ Citing Literature Volume36, Issue7July 2017Pages 1695-1696 ReferencesRelatedInformation" @default.
• W4251713873 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4251713873 date "2017-06-28" @default.
• W4251713873 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4251713873 title "Fostering integrity in scientific research and publishing" @default.
• W4251713873 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3841" @default.
• W4251713873 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28657687" @default.
• W4251713873 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W4251713873 type Work @default.
• W4251713873 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4251713873 countsByYear W42517138732019 @default.
• W4251713873 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4251713873 hasBestOaLocation W42517138731 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C201305675 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2778805511 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2779390046 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2780587575 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2993209047 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C2994190893 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C48798503 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConcept C95121780 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C111472728 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C127413603 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C138885662 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C142724271 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C151719136 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C15744967 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C161191863 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C17744445 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C199539241 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C201305675 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C204787440 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2778805511 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2779390046 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2779530757 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2780587575 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2993209047 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C2994190893 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C39549134 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C41008148 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C48798503 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C55587333 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C71924100 @default.
• W4251713873 hasConceptScore W4251713873C95121780 @default.
• W4251713873 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W4251713873 hasLocation W42517138731 @default.
• W4251713873 hasLocation W42517138732 @default.
• W4251713873 hasOpenAccess W4251713873 @default.
• W4251713873 hasPrimaryLocation W42517138731 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W1454991759 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W1657426150 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W1857411311 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W2001772272 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W2359861589 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W2620675769 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W2785225511 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W2795255987 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W3032016585 @default.
• W4251713873 hasRelatedWork W3032688971 @default.
• W4251713873 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W4251713873 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4251713873 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4251713873 workType "article" @default.