A COPE Study (2019): Exploring Publication Ethics Issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is a non-statutory body which aims to provide practical publication ethics guidance for journal editors working in all research disciplines. COPE was first conceived by an editor of a specialist medical journal at the BMJ Publishing Group but has since grown to become a fully multidisciplinary organisation. As a result of perceptions within COPE that some members not in Science Technology and Medicine (STM) disciplines might not consider COPE to be as relevant, in early 2019 COPE, with the support of Routledge (part of the Taylor & Francis Group), commissioned primary research to better understand the publication ethics landscape for editors working on journals within the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The research used a two-stage methodology: first exploring the issues qualitatively via two online focus groups with a diverse group of journal editors from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, before creating and disseminating an online survey. The survey received 656 admissible returned forms. - 64% of journal editors encountered issues addressing language and writing quality barriers, which they are balancing against remaining inclusive in their publication decisions. - 58% reported detecting plagiarism as the most serious issue they dealt with, followed by fraudulent submissions and data/image fabrication. - Recognising and dealing with bias in peer reviewer comments was an issue encountered by 55% of journal editors. - Journal editors felt least confident in dealing with data and/or image fabrication issues and fraudulent submissions. CONTENTS / Executive summary / Background to the research / The research / The results / Awareness and relevance of COPE to arts, humanities, and social sciences journal editors / Key suggestions for future directions / Conclusions / Appendices / COPE TIMELINE / FEEDBACK AND Acknowledgement

Rules of Professional Conduct, Including Amendments and Additions, September 17, 1923

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_prof/1482/thumbnail.jp

Rules of professional conduct: including amendments and additions prepared by the Committee on Professional Ethics and approved by the Council prior to September 30, 1919

Rules of Professional Conduct are eleven in number in 1919.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_comm/1060/thumbnail.jp

Rules of professional conduct: prepared by the Committee on Professional Ethics and approved by the Council April 9, 1917

Rules of Professional Conduct are eight in number in 1917.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_comm/1067/thumbnail.jp

Highlights: 1967 National Conference on Professional Ethics

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_comm/1314/thumbnail.jp

Ethical Thinking and Practice for Parent and Family Life Educators

Parent and family life educators face difficult ethical issues on a daily basis. These issues may include observing parenting practices that may be harmful to children, responding to parent remarks about their partners, or sharing information about a family with a professional in another agency. Some of these situations may be resolved by reviewing general principles of good practice with a colleague, while others may reveal a true ethical dilemma. Parent and family life educators are working with complex family systems, diverse belief and value systems, and a variety of social institutions and agencies. Many face these issues in relative isolation and with limited guidance from an emerging field. This document was developed to offer a thoughtful and balanced approach to understanding ethical principles and a concrete process for using them to address difficult ethical issues and dilemmas. Ethics Committee Members: Ada Alden, Dawn Cassidy, Betty Cooke, Beth Gausman, Glen Palm, Marietta Rice, Joyce Schultenover, Anne Stokes, Sue Stoner, and Kathy Zanner

Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?

Issue Addressed: Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authors who have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why journals should not, in general, publish articles with no ethics approval, with particular attention to the health promotion context. Methods: Using theoretical bioethical reasoning and drawing on a case study; we first rebut some potential criticisms of the need for research ethics approval. We then outline four positive claims to justify a presumption that research should, in most instances, be published only if it has been undertaken with HREC approval. Results: We present four justifications for requiring ethics approval prior to publication: (i) that HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (ii) that the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated; (iii) that obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (iv) that obtaining HREC approval demonstrates respect for persons. Conclusion: This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of why research ethics approval should generally be obtained prior to publishing in the health promotion context. So what? Journals such as the HPJA have recently begun to require research ethics approval for publishing research. Health promotion researchers will be interested in learning the ethical justification for this change. Keywords Publication ethics, research, health promotion, ethics approva