Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors?

Delivering the best possible healthcare requires a reliable evidence-base of research publications. Both authors and editors have responsibilities when publishing research yet it can be hard to find guidance on these. Most journal instructions concentrate on style and formatting but give little or no information about research and publication ethics

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.</p

The EASL–<em>Lancet</em> Commission on liver health in Europe: prevention, case-finding, and early diagnosis to reduce liver-related mortality

In December, 2021, the first report from the Lancet Commission on liver disease in Europe, a joint project with the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), was published. 1 The Commission explored the harm to liver health in Europe that results from a combination of increasing obesity, the highest level of alcohol consumption in the world, and delays in viral hepatitis elimination. The Commission emphasised the importance of structural factors that drive risk behaviours and poor outcomes in liver disease, with disproportionate effects on disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. Such structural drivers include the heterogeneous landscape of alcohol policy in Europe, fragmented access to testing and therapy for viral hepatitis, and stigmatisation faced by individuals at risk of liver disease at the societal level and within health-care settings. 2 , 3 This stigma contributes to care avoidance and delayed diagnosis, ultimately leading to a bias in clinical pathways that prioritise managing advanced liver disease rather than early diagnosis and primary and secondary prevention of liver disease. The Commission report included ten recommendations to facilitate a shift towards health promotion, prevention, proactive case-finding, early identification of progressive liver fibrosis, and early management and treatment of liver diseases (figure). 1 The key message of the Commission was paraphrased by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, in her remarks made at the launch event: “in most cases, liver disease can be prevented. Prevention is the best cure that we have.

Validation of MIPAS ClONO2 measurements

Altitude profiles of ClONO2 retrieved with the IMK (Institut fur Meteorologie und Klimaforschung) science-oriented data processor from MIPAS/Envisat (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding on Envisat) mid-infrared limb emission measurements between July 2002 and March 2004 have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne (Mark IV, FIRS2, MIPAS-B), airborne (MIPAS-STR), ground-based (Spitsbergen, Thule, Kiruna, Harestua, Jungfraujoch, Izana, Wollongong, Lauder), and spaceborne (ACE-FTS) observations. With few exceptions we found very good agreement between these instruments and MIPAS with no evidence for any bias in most cases and altitude regions. For balloon-borne measurements typical absolute mean differences are below 0.05 ppbv over the whole altitude range from 10 to 39 km. In case of ACE-FTS observations mean differences are below 0.03 ppbv for observations below 26 km. Above this altitude the comparison with ACE-FTS is affected by the photochemically induced diurnal variation of ClONO2. Correction for this by use of a chemical transport model led to an overcompensation of the photochemical effect by up to 0.1 ppbv at altitudes of 30-35 km in case of MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons while for the balloon-borne observations no such inconsistency has been detected. The comparison of MIPAS derived total column amounts with ground-based observations revealed no significant bias in the MIPAS data. Mean differences between MIPAS and FTIR column abundances are 0.11 +/- 0.12 x 10(14) cm(-2) (1.0 +/- 1.1%) and -0.09 +/- 0.19 x 10(14) cm(-2) (-0.8 +/- 1.7%), depending on the coincidence criterion applied. chi(2) tests have been performed to assess the combined precision estimates of MIPAS and the related instruments. When no exact coincidences were available as in case of MIPAS-FTIR or MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons it has been necessary to take into consideration a coincidence error term to account for chi(2) deviations. From the resulting chi(2) profiles there is no evidence for a systematic over/underestimation of the MIPAS random error analysis.Peer reviewe

ARTEFACTS: How do we want to deal with the future of our one and only planet?

The European Commission’s Science and Knowledge Service, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), decided to try working hand-in-hand with leading European science centres and museums. Behind this decision was the idea that the JRC could better support EU Institutions in engaging with the European public. The fact that European Union policies are firmly based on scientific evidence is a strong message which the JRC is uniquely able to illustrate. Such a collaboration would not only provide a platform to explain the benefits of EU policies to our daily lives but also provide an opportunity for European citizens to engage by taking a more active part in the EU policy making process for the future. A PILOT PROGRAMME To test the idea, the JRC launched an experimental programme to work with science museums: a perfect partner for three compelling reasons. Firstly, they attract a large and growing number of visitors. Leading science museums in Europe have typically 500 000 visitors per year. Furthermore, they are based in large European cities and attract local visitors as well as tourists from across Europe and beyond. The second reason for working with museums is that they have mastered the art of how to communicate key elements of sophisticated arguments across to the public and making complex topics of public interest readily accessible. That is a high-value added skill and a crucial part of the valorisation of public-funded research, never to be underestimated. Finally museums are, at present, undergoing something of a renaissance. Museums today are vibrant environments offering new techniques and technologies to both inform and entertain, and attract visitors of all demographics.JRC.H.2-Knowledge Management Methodologies, Communities and Disseminatio

Retractions: cooperation between journals and institutions - the Lancet's experience

Presented at the Retractions conference: keeping the pool clean: prevention and management of misconduct related retractions held on July 20-21, 2016 at Hilton Fort Collins in Fort Collins, Colorado.Sabine Kleinert studied medicine in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the USA, and trained as a Paediatrician in the UK and Belgium. After further specialist training in Paediatric Cardiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London and the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and research training at the Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA, she joined The Lancet as a full-time Medical Editor in 1998. In March 2002, she became Executive Editor, and in July 2006 Senior Executive Editor. She joined the Committee on Publication Ethics in 1999, was elected to Council in 2002, and served as Vice-Chair from 2006 to March 2012. She was a member of the planning committee of the first and second World Conference on Research Integrity and she co-chaired the planning committee for the 2013 and 2015 World Conferences on Research Integrity.PowerPoint presentation given on Day 2: Thursday, July 21st, 2016.This conference was funded by the Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, grant #ORIIR15001

Publicação responsável de pesquisa: padrões internacionais para autores.

RESUMO• A pesquisa relatada deve ter sido conduzida de forma ética e responsável edeve cumprir toda a legislação pertinente.• Pesquisadores devem apresentar os resultados obtidos de forma clara, honestae sem fabricação, falsificação ou manipulação inapropriada de dados.• Pesquisadores devem se esforçar para descrever de forma clara e inequívoca osmétodos utilizados, a fim de que os resultados possam ser confirmados por outros.• Pesquisadores devem cumprir requisitos de publicação de que o trabalhoapresentado é original, não é plágio e não foi publicado anteriormente.• Autores devem assumir a responsabilidade coletiva por trabalhos submetidose publicados.• A autoria das publicações de pesquisa deve refletir com precisão as contribuiçõesde indivíduos para o trabalho desenvolvido e seu relato.• Fontes de financiamento e conflitos de interesse relevantes devem serdivulgados

Publicação responsável de pesquisa: padrões internacionais para editores

Editores devem assumir a responsabilidade por tudo o que publicam. • Editores devem tomar decisões justas e imparciais, independentemente de consideração comercial e assegurar um processo de revisão por pares justo e adequado. • Editores devem adotar políticas editoriais que incentivem a máxima transparência e informação completa e honesta. • Editores devem proteger a integridade dos dados publicados por meio da emissão de erratas e retratações, quando necessário, e investigando suspeitas ou denúncias de má conduta na pesquisa ou na publicação. • Editores devem investigar má conduta editorial e de avaliadores. • Editores devem avaliar criticamente a conduta ética de estudos em humanos e animais. • Avaliadores e autores devem ser informados sobre o que se espera deles. • Editores devem adotar políticas adequadas para lidar com conflitos de interesses editoriais

Giving editors and institutions some CLUEs about research integrity cases

Giving editors and institutions some CLUEs about research integrity case