Loading…
Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice
Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involve...
Saved in:
Published in: | Research integrity and peer review 2021-04, Vol.6 (1), p.6-12, Article 6 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73 |
container_end_page | 12 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 6 |
container_title | Research integrity and peer review |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Wager, Elizabeth Kleinert, Sabine |
description | Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.
These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.
The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.
Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collabor |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_293ff72b08b044caa51d574ffd75d990</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_293ff72b08b044caa51d574ffd75d990</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2513246879</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkk-LFDEQxYMo7jLuF_AgDYKsh9bK_44HQYZRFwa8OEcJ6XT1mqG7MyY9K357sz3rsuspReq9H5XKI-QlhXeUNup9FhQ0r4HRGoCCqfkTcs5ANnWjqHz6oD4jFznvoahUo5hQz8kZ543kysA5-bGO8YDJzSFO1ZtqG1zIpWpx_o04Vbsp3GDKYQ6YS3vThTmmXF2ut7vN2w9VQh_HEadu8edqcea5OiTn5-DxBXnWuyHjxd25IrvPm-_rr_X225er9adt7YUxc41SMqlb0Oi7TkgulALFe0e5k7zvqfbUmF5S75TjLWqPxijhAZVTvWo1X5GrE7eLbm8PKYwu_bHRBbtcxHRtXSoDDWiZKUTNWmhaEMI7J2kntej7TsvOGCisjyfW4diO2Hmc5uSGR9DHnSn8tNfxxjYgGij4Fbm8A6T461jWYceQPQ6DmzAes2WS8vINjb6Vvv5Puo_HNJVVFRUDyhRfVOyk8inmnLC_H4aCvQ2DPYXBljDYJQyWF9Orh8-4t_z7ev4XNQau8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2520126379</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Wager, Elizabeth ; Kleinert, Sabine</creator><creatorcontrib>Wager, Elizabeth ; Kleinert, Sabine ; CLUE Working Group ; on behalf of the CLUE Working Group</creatorcontrib><description>Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.
These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.
The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.
Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2058-8615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2058-8615</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33853690</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central</publisher><subject>Cooperation ; Misconduct ; Peer review ; Plagiarism ; Professional misconduct ; Research institutions ; Research integrity ; Research reporting ; Working groups</subject><ispartof>Research integrity and peer review, 2021-04, Vol.6 (1), p.6-12, Article 6</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7826-1188 ; 0000-0002-4202-7813</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048029/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2520126379?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33853690$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wager, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleinert, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLUE Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the CLUE Working Group</creatorcontrib><title>Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice</title><title>Research integrity and peer review</title><addtitle>Res Integr Peer Rev</addtitle><description>Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.
These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.
The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.
Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.</description><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Misconduct</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Plagiarism</subject><subject>Professional misconduct</subject><subject>Research institutions</subject><subject>Research integrity</subject><subject>Research reporting</subject><subject>Working groups</subject><issn>2058-8615</issn><issn>2058-8615</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkk-LFDEQxYMo7jLuF_AgDYKsh9bK_44HQYZRFwa8OEcJ6XT1mqG7MyY9K357sz3rsuspReq9H5XKI-QlhXeUNup9FhQ0r4HRGoCCqfkTcs5ANnWjqHz6oD4jFznvoahUo5hQz8kZ543kysA5-bGO8YDJzSFO1ZtqG1zIpWpx_o04Vbsp3GDKYQ6YS3vThTmmXF2ut7vN2w9VQh_HEadu8edqcea5OiTn5-DxBXnWuyHjxd25IrvPm-_rr_X225er9adt7YUxc41SMqlb0Oi7TkgulALFe0e5k7zvqfbUmF5S75TjLWqPxijhAZVTvWo1X5GrE7eLbm8PKYwu_bHRBbtcxHRtXSoDDWiZKUTNWmhaEMI7J2kntej7TsvOGCisjyfW4diO2Hmc5uSGR9DHnSn8tNfxxjYgGij4Fbm8A6T461jWYceQPQ6DmzAes2WS8vINjb6Vvv5Puo_HNJVVFRUDyhRfVOyk8inmnLC_H4aCvQ2DPYXBljDYJQyWF9Orh8-4t_z7ev4XNQau8w</recordid><startdate>20210415</startdate><enddate>20210415</enddate><creator>Wager, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Kleinert, Sabine</creator><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7826-1188</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4202-7813</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210415</creationdate><title>Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice</title><author>Wager, Elizabeth ; Kleinert, Sabine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Misconduct</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Plagiarism</topic><topic>Professional misconduct</topic><topic>Research institutions</topic><topic>Research integrity</topic><topic>Research reporting</topic><topic>Working groups</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wager, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleinert, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLUE Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the CLUE Working Group</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health & Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Research integrity and peer review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wager, Elizabeth</au><au>Kleinert, Sabine</au><aucorp>CLUE Working Group</aucorp><aucorp>on behalf of the CLUE Working Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice</atitle><jtitle>Research integrity and peer review</jtitle><addtitle>Res Integr Peer Rev</addtitle><date>2021-04-15</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>6</spage><epage>12</epage><pages>6-12</pages><artnum>6</artnum><issn>2058-8615</issn><eissn>2058-8615</eissn><abstract>Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.
These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.
The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.
Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central</pub><pmid>33853690</pmid><doi>10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7826-1188</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4202-7813</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2058-8615 |
ispartof | Research integrity and peer review, 2021-04, Vol.6 (1), p.6-12, Article 6 |
issn | 2058-8615 2058-8615 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_293ff72b08b044caa51d574ffd75d990 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content Database |
subjects | Cooperation Misconduct Peer review Plagiarism Professional misconduct Research institutions Research integrity Research reporting Working groups |
title | Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T08%3A08%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cooperation%20&%20Liaison%20between%20Universities%20&%20Editors%20(CLUE):%20recommendations%20on%20best%20practice&rft.jtitle=Research%20integrity%20and%20peer%20review&rft.au=Wager,%20Elizabeth&rft.aucorp=CLUE%20Working%20Group&rft.date=2021-04-15&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=6&rft.epage=12&rft.pages=6-12&rft.artnum=6&rft.issn=2058-8615&rft.eissn=2058-8615&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s41073-021-00109-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2513246879%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-e55257b07ecdd453466063fa13a53ff17c199f51ca6a3be7ce9964c0e6a6f6b73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2520126379&rft_id=info:pmid/33853690&rfr_iscdi=true |