Research Integrity in ASHA:Scientific Publication Practices
2006 ORI Research on Research Integrity Conference
University of South FloridaSafety Harbor Resort and Spa - Tampa, FLDecember 1-3, 2006
Janis Costello Ingham, Ph.D.University of California – Santa Barbara
Sharon E. Moss, Ph.D.American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Co-Presenters Dean C. Garstecki, Northwestern University
Jennifer Horner, Medical University of South Carolina
Joanne Jessen, ASHA
Charissa R. Lansing, University of Illinois, Urbana - Champaign
James H. McCartney, California State University Fred D. Minifie, University of Washington (retired) Randall R. Robey, University of Virginia
Sarah Slater, ASHA
This research was supported by the Research on Research Integrity Program, an ORI/NIH collaboration, grant # RO1 N544534-0151
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this research survey was to --
sample CSD academic and research community
importance and adequacy of research integrity topics
publications in ASHA’s scientific journals
Methodology: FIELDING/SURVEY POPULATION
Editor, Associate Editor, Reviewer Publications Board Member Board of Ethics Member Contributing Scientist / Author General Readership Graduate Student
Results:RANKINGS OF IMPORTANCE
The survey Q: In regard to scientific integrity in research publications in general, how important is ______ ?
Scale: 1-10 (1 = Not At All Important and 10 = Critically Important) or, Do Not Know
RESULTS: The TOP TEN (derived from Group 1: Editors, Associate Editors, Pub Board) 1 – Fabrication of data
2 – Falsification of data
3 – Separation of advertising sales from scholarly
content decisions
4 - Plagiarism
5 – Criteria for accepting advertising
The TOP TEN, continued
6 – Maintenance of retracted papers in electronic archives
7 – Publication of retractions and errata
8 – Confidentiality of the peer review process
9 – Disclosure to Editor of author conflicts of interest
10 – Author declaration to Editor of adherence to HIPAA requirements
The TOP TEN, continued
There was high agreement in ranking of items between Group 1 (Editors, Associate Editors, Publication Board members) and Group 2 (reviewers, authors, and Board of Ethics members) (See handout, blue items)
Rank order correlation was 0.94.
Mean highest rankings were 9.71, 9.74 and 9.70, respectively
The TOP TEN, continued
Within the Top Ten, readers judged three items to be considerably less important than the other judge groups:
Criteria for accepting advertising
Confidentiality of the peer review process
Disclosure to the Editor of author conflicts of interest
RESULTS: The “BOTTOM TEN”
56 – Authors’ ID during the review process
55 – Requirement that copyright be transferred to ASHA
54 – Authors’ responsibility to report errors for correction
53 – Explicit statement of humane care and Treatment of animals in the published MS
52 – Evaluation of reviewers
The BOTTOM TEN, continued 51 – Reviewers’ evaluation of MSs previously
reviewed for another journal
50 – Data sharing for meta-analyses
49 – Publication of previously published data
48 – Reviewers’ ID during the review process
47 – Authors’ declaration to Editor of adherence to IRB requirements
The BOTTOM TEN, continued There was good agreement in ranking of
items among the three groups.
Mean lowest rankings were: 4.66, 6.11 and 7.12, for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
THE “READER” GROUP
Throughout the data, where incongruent
ratings occurred, they were typically generated by the Reader group (18 items out of 56 total). (See red items on the handout.)
Rank order correlations:Group 1 vs. Group 3 = 0.86Group 2 vs. Group 3 = 0.83
ASHA’s Publication Policy Documents Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association ASHA’s Editor’s Handbook ASHA’s Information for Reviewers ASHA’s Instructions for Authors ASHA’s Reviewer Agreed Letter ASHA’s Code of Ethics
Adequacy of Coverage of Publication Ethics Issues in ASHA’s Policy Documents Expert judges identified all sections judged to
be potentially relevant to the survey’s 56 items from all six policy documents
Panel of 6 expert judges rated each identified item from each document 0 = item not relevant to the given topic 1 = only tangentially relevant 2 = partially relevant, but not completely
adequate 3 = adequate coverage/discussion of the topic
4 or more rankings of “3” = topic adequately covered
Adequacy of Coverage of Publication Ethics Issues in ASHA’s Policy
Documents Eight of the Top Ten items were judged to
be discussed adequately in at least one of ASHA’s policy documents. (See handout.)
However, of the total 56 items, 28 (50%) were judged not to be adequately discussed, or were completely ignored. (See handout.)
Adequate coverage of specific items is distributed across five documents, sometimes singly; sometimes redundantly. (See handout.)
Conclusions
Develop a comprehensive document.
Make recommendations to Publications Board and Board of Ethics.
Develop additional policies.
Educate the research and reader membership.
Use these findings as a baseline for the future.