Letter from the COPE co-Chairs
“Don’t cross the streams” advises Egon Spengler in Ghostbusters
Picture credit: CC BY 2.0 Phillip Ritz from New York, NY, USA - NYFD Hook and Ladder #8 (Ghostbusters Firehouse)
Crossing the streams: Research institutions and research publishers
“Don’t cross the streams” advises Egon Spengler in Ghostbusters. A week or so ago we did just that. We had an hour-long discussion about publishing ethics and research integrity with experienced people from universities and research institutions around the world, crossing streams with research publishers and journal editors at a COPE meeting just outside London. Here are three thoughts from that discussion.
Thought #1. Unsurprisingly institutions, editors, and publishers voiced a shared commitment to the same kinds of “quality” in the research they support, peer review, and publish. That shared commitment, in the publishing ethics space at least, is to the quality standards described by COPE’s core practices. Assuming that those core practices are addressed appropriately, then our shared goal is to publish all research (AllResearch, like AllTrials, anyone?). But we remain challenged by the perception — and perhaps the reality — that negative results are hard to publish or are hard for researchers to want to publish.
Thought #2. Publishing all research will mean an explosion of research outputs, alongside journal articles and sometimes instead of them. The first and possibly most important of these research outputs is data. But the infrastructure, skills, management, and culture to match this ideal are certainly patchy around the world, and in some cases non-existent.
Thought #3. Whatever research objects get published, let’s remind ourselves: research and research publishing is a human activity. By its very nature it is imperfect and problems arise through simple human error, naivety, and infrequently corruption. What we share at ethical research institutions and ethical research publishers is a commitment to preventing problems where we can and correcting them where we have to – with proper due process. Simple, right? Not so simple, it seems. Institutional investigations can conclude with requests from institutions to editors and publishers for retractions. The same can be true in reverse, when publishers find conclusive evidence of a problem and request action from institutions. Sometimes those requests across the institution–publisher divide seem not to be heard. Perhaps the messages in either direction sometimes fail to reach the right people. In which case this should be an easy problem to solve. We’re attempting to bridge that gap as part of our work with institutions on COPE’s pilot initiative.
Thanks to all who took part. And we look forward to crossing those streams more often, despite Egon's well-meaning and usually sensible (if you're a Ghostbuster) advice.
COPE co-chairs Geri Pearson and Chris Graf