| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Molecular Human Reproduction, Vol. 7, No. 8, 695,
August 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Editorial |
Editorial
Editor-in-Chief
After almost a year of transition, firstly with a new Editor-in-Chief, and then with Associate Editors to help in the peer-review process, Molecular Human Reproduction is happily sustaining a very high performance rate. Our first published Impact Factor, at over 3.64, reflects the high standards that the journal has established in recent years. The number of submissions from around the world is increasing, and we are maintaining a very positive overall acceptance rate of ~40%, a good guarantee of the high quality science.
Nevertheless, there are many improvements to be made. Our associate editors and reviewers are working together with the editorial office and myself to ensure that the review process is comprehensive, fair and efficient. An increasing use of electronic communications, and the establishment of an on-line submission and review system in the near future, should help to speed up this process. We should like to see even more submissions which report on basic reproductive science to elaborate the underlying molecular mechanisms responsible for fertility and reproduction as they apply to the human.
While the quality of the papers published in Molecular Human Reproduction is our first priority, it is also important that we pay attention to the ethics of scientific publishing. In the present issue of the journal, we have reprinted a copy of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, first published in 1999. Founded by Michael Farthing, the current Chairman (COPE), Richard Smith, Editor of the British Medical Journal , and Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet , COPE was established in 1997 to provide help and adjudication in issues where the ethics of scientific reporting appear to have been infringed. It is most unfortunate that ethical problems requiring the use of the COPE guidelines are not uncommon. Such problems range from so-called `double-publishing', i.e. the reproduction of the same text, results or figures in two separate manuscripts, through to `plagiarism', the downright copying of someone else's text or results, and can extend even to data falsification and fraud. Sometimes, minor infringements might occur out of ignorance or due to language difficulties, where it is much easier to `borrow' previously published text than painfully compose a new text in a foreign language such as English. This is nevertheless unacceptable behaviour.
Recently, editors of many scientific and clinical journals, including the ESHRE journals, have become aware of too many unethical practises in the composition of manuscripts. Partly this may reflect an increasing pressure to publish because of approaching grant deadlines or assessment exercises. These practises might also be associated with a trend toward `salami slicing' i.e. unnecessarily splitting data for publication into two or more minimal articles, which might consequently carry the risk of overlapping information. We wish to make it clear that these practises are unacceptable to the editors, reviewers and readers of Molecular Human Reproduction . It is particularly worrying that many cases of ethical infringement are detected by chance, when a reviewer recognises a piece of his/her own text or has recently reviewed another manuscript by the same authors. This suggests that the number of undetected infringments is posssibly much greater.
The COPE guidelines define very clearly what is and is not acceptable in terms of scientific publishing. They also lay down a hierarchy of possible sanctions depending upon the severity of the misdemeanour. These could range from a mild reprimand and rejection of a submitted manuscript, to a ban on future publication in the journal. In severe cases, we could even inform employers or granting agencies, or publish the infringement and the names of the authors. I therefore strongly urge the readers of Molecular Human Reproduction to read the COPE guidelines, as reprinted in this issue of the journal, and to ensure that no infringements of good scientific publishing occur in the manuscripts submitted for publication. It is particularly important for senior authors to ensure that the ethics of scientific publishing are upheld during the preparation of manuscripts. However, all authors are required to sign a form stating that they concur with all aspects of the submission. This signature carries a responsibility since all authors share the burden of any infringements.
Molecular Human Reproduction has become one of the first addresses for publication of basic reproductive research. This requires us to maintain the highest standards in the quality and reporting of the research published. In recent issues of the journal, we have published a number of novel and exciting findings, which throw new light on central aspects of fertility and reproduction. Some of these are also now drawing the attention of the media, who regularly appraise the contents of the journal. We wish the journal to continue in this way, publishing the best science in our field.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D H. BARLOW, H K. BEARD, and A C. WILLIAMS Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Europe Encompass Diverse and Complex Ethical Viewpoints: Issues to Be Considered in Reporting Research in Human Reproduction Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2004; 1034(1): 110 - 116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||