JoSS Response to Discovery or Allegation of Unethical Publishing Conduct ⋆

As an international, peer-reviewed technical journal, the Journal of Small Satellites (JoSS) is committed to maintaining the integrity of its published content. To this end, JoSS follows the policies set forth here on ethical practices, conduct, and response, consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf).

JoSS Authors, Reviewers, and Editors are tasked to read and understand the policies set forth below, and are expected to put them into practice in the conduct of their JoSS roles.

JoSS is also committed to timely follow-up on any complaint received or issue noted, taking appropriate action on any complaints of suspected or alleged actions that are not consistent with our policies, as described herein (adapted from COPE guidance cited above).

I – Primary Types of Ethical Publishing Issues Envisioned

The primary types of ethical publishing issues envisioned in this Statement, and JoSS requirements and processes in place for detecting or precluding each type, include:

A. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another’s written words in one’s own work – either copying or paraphrasing them – as if they are one’s own (i.e., without permission, credit, or acknowledgment).

JoSS Technical Area Editors (TAEs) and Reviewers are charged with the task of spotting potential plagiarism issues and calling them to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for investigation and resolution. They may use plagiarism detection software to screen the submissions, in addition to other means of confirming suspected plagiarism. Similarly, a complaint or report of plagiarism may reach the EiC. If plagiarism (or potential plagiarism) is identified, the JoSS response guidelines on plagiarism discussed in Section II will be followed.

B. Research Results Wrongly Claimed by Authors, Research Errors, or Fraud

TAEs and members of the Editorial Board, and possibly Reviewers, are all well-positioned to know what research is being carried out at any particular time, at any particular place, and by whom. Hence, there may arise questions in their exposure to submitted research results as to their authenticity, as presented. In addition, they may become aware of a challenge or complaint as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author(s).

Similar to this authenticity challenge, there may be allegations of research errors or fraud, when reviewers or readers come to the publisher or editor with a claim such as: certain laboratories do not have the facilities to conduct the research they published; the gel images look manipulated; the data from the control experiments is too perfect, etc. In such cases, the possibility of fraud needs to be considered.

Fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by data manipulation or invention. Changing the data measurements to conveniently fit the desired end result is fraud, but excluding inconvenient results is deliberate research error, which, in effect, is the same end result.

In such cases, the issue should be raised to the EiC. If possible, the claimant should assist in directing inquiries to the appropriate individuals and institutions to verify whether a research claim is genuine. The EiC’s response is detailed in Section II below.

C. Allegations Related to Authorship

Every author who contributes substantially to an article should be credited as an author, and no person should be named as an author when they did not actually contribute. Examples of this include “ghost authors,” who are omitted from authorship credit despite actually qualifying, or “guest” or “gift” authors who are listed as authors despite not qualifying.

As stated in the JoSS Guidelines for Authors linked from the website, to be included as an “author” of a JoSS-published article, one must have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study, and must have approved the final form of the work. Fundamentally, anyone credited as an author must be prepared and have the ability and responsibility to publicly defend the work.

The corresponding author submitting an article to JoSS is required to identify all co-authors and any other contributors as a part of the submission package or cover letter, and to attest to their consent for the publication of the article. JoSS requires a statement of authorship qualifications for each submission, requesting clear information about the contributions of each author listed. This practice does not, however, identify any contributors who are not listed as an author.

If a challenge to authorship arises with regard to a submission or published article of JoSS, it is the Journal’s preference that authors resolve such matters amongst themselves. If this is not possible, the EiC will take the steps outlined below in Section II.

D. Duplicate or Previous Submission

Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication, website, archive, or other published forum (either simultaneously or previously), except in very unusual circumstances (and then, only with agreement by the EiC of JoSS). As with plagiarism, duplicate submission may take several forms: literal, partial but substantial, or by paraphrasing.

JoSS requires a copyright transfer and any necessary permissions to be obtained from other publications that have published figures, illustrations, tables, or other such portions of a submitted manuscript. These must be included with submissions for the package to be considered by reviewers, and authors are cautioned in a letter of acknowledgement of receipt of a submission that their submission package is not considered to be complete until JoSS has received said forms.

Nevertheless, this can sometimes be an issue that is discovered at any time after submission whether or not the forms have been submitted, or if they were not understood to apply. In such cases, JoSS will follow the protocol set out in Section II.

E. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest or Reviewer Bias

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. (Such relationships are also known as “dual commitments”, “competing interests”, or “competing loyalties.”)

These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of the research itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest (i.e., those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors). Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that a conflict they have failed to disclose exists, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and disqualify themselves from any decisions where they have a conflict of interest. Editorial staff must not use the information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of journal staff.

JoSS requires that all participants in the peer review and publication process disclose all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict of interest and financial interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript.

If allegations related to undisclosed conflicts of interest or bias arise, JoSS will investigate as described below.

II – JoSS Response Steps

A. Before Publication

Ideally, when ethical suspicions or allegations with regard to a submitted manuscript arise, whether from an outside complaint or from internal review, they will be addressed before publication, and between/among the parties involved. The EiC, who is responsible for response, investigation, and conclusion of the issue based on his or her fact-finding, is also the central point of contact for all related communications, working with the Publishing staff. The EiC is expected to keep the Publisher informed at all stages, and conduct any necessary investigation in coordination with the Publisher, whose staff will work with the EiC to provide support and assistance.

In general, the following steps are involved in JoSS’s response to any ethical publishing challenge:

If there is a complaint received, the EiC will seek an explanation or clarification from, and the views of, the complainant, when necessary, with evidence supporting that explanation.
The issue, whether received as a complaint or flagged by JoSS representatives, will be raised with the corresponding author, or, in some circumstances, other authors of the article in question. In this correspondence, the EiC will also request an explanation, and, where necessary, the evidence supporting that explanation.
The complainant’s views will then be sought on any explanation and evidence provided by the author. Similarly, the views of the author on any explanation and evidence provided by the complainant will likewise be requested.
At this point in the investigation, the EiC may be satisfied that there has been no ethical violation. If not, however, he/she should continue to investigate the matter as follows:
If the authors are unable to provide satisfactory argument on a balance of probabilities that there has been no violation, then the EiC will carry out further investigation. The depth of the investigation will vary from case to case, but may include the following steps:

* Further investigating any allegations made by third parties
* Speaking to colleagues of any author
* Speaking to officials at any institutions where the research in question was carried out
* Speaking to officials at any professional body or institution of which any author is a member
* Speaking to other leading experts in the field of research in question
* Speaking to members of the Editorial Board

The JoSS EiC will reach a decision that, on a balance of probabilities, after having made reasonable and diligent inquiries, there either is or is not, prima facie, an issue.

As a note of caution, in communications related to any investigation, JoSS representatives will exercise care to act fairly and objectively and not to defame any author (or complainant) in any way, which could give rise to legal liabilities, including damages. This includes:

* Making any inquiries of an author’s institution in terms of an “alleged” or “apparent” violation. The inquiries should clearly state the facts and the allegation without premature judgment of the author’s culpability.

* Taking care to gather information while imparting as little information as possible about the suspicion or accusation.

A Note about Other Journals/Publications

When JoSS is notified or becomes aware that a paper has been published elsewhere that: (1) plagiarizes a paper published in JoSS, (2) contains research results that are not original to its author but are original to the author of a paper published in JoSS, or (3) has already been published in whole or in part in JoSS:

* As a first step, the EiC will contact the editor of the publication in which the offending paper appears, seeking a full explanation. It is to be hoped that the editor of that publication will take steps similar to those recommended by these guidelines in relation to JoSS.

* If that editor fails to investigate the matter properly or is not able to satisfy the EiC on a balance of probabilities that there is no issue, then the EiC should follow the steps set forth in JoSS protocols for like issues in the reverse situation (listed above, as Steps 1-6). That is, the EiC will investigate the suspicion or allegation by initially contacting the author(s) of the offending publication for an explanation, and continuing the investigation to its necessary conclusion.

A Note on Legal and Practical Considerations

1. Legal Consequences of Findings

The EiC must keep the Publisher promptly and regularly updated if any ethics violations are suspected, as well as throughout any investigative or response process. If necessary, and particularly where there may be legal liability, the Publisher may wish to seek legal advice internally or externally. The Publisher has the right to take over the conduct of an investigation from the EiC if the Publisher considers it advisable to do so.

All disputes will be first addressed through the parties themselves, followed by any administrative means available for arbitration if necessary, and then, having exhausted all non-judicial remedies, will be governed under the jurisdiction of the Publisher’s base of operations, i.e., the Commonwealth of Virginia.

To summarize the legal consequences, in the case of plagiarism, there may be an infringement of copyright. There may also have occurred a violation of moral rights, which include the right of an author of a work to be identified as such, as well as the right of an author to prevent unwanted changes to his or her work.

In the case of research results not being original to the purported author and allegations about authorship of contributions, there may be an infringement of the moral rights outlined above, but also infringement of a person’s moral right not to have a work attributed to him or her when not the author.

In all cases of ethical misconduct, there is likely to be a breach of contract by the author, who will have contravened the terms of his or her publishing agreement with the publisher or relevant instructions to authors.

2. Practical Consequences of Findings

If the EiC decides that, prima facie, there is no issue, publication may take place or continue (as the case may be) in the normal way.

If the EiC decides after investigating that there has been unethical practice, the paper may be rejected.

B. After Publication

If unethical practice is discovered after the article has been published, whether it is a self-reported error or misstatement or otherwise, the EiC, in coordination with the Publisher, should consider whether retraction of the article or, in very exceptional cases, removal is appropriate. Alternatively, other possible responses include the publication of ‘notes of concern’, corrigendum, letters to the editor, editorial statements, and the like, as follows (adapted from COPE Guidelines for Notes of Concern, Corrigendum, Letters to the Editor, Editorial Statements).

1. Refutation

Readers’ criticisms or refutations of published articles will be considered in the form of a Letter to the Editor if its Author provides compelling evidence that a major claim of the original paper was incorrect.

Such refutations are peer-reviewed; when possible, the same Reviewers of the original paper will be requested. The Corresponding Author will be given the opportunity to respond or comment, including the option to retract the original article.

In any case, the published refutation and any resulting Author comments or retraction will be linked online to the original paper, and that original paper linked to the refutation or retraction.

2. Errata, Corrigenda, and Editorial Notes

The EiC will consider issuing an erratum or corrigendum (or editorial note, if the authors do not agree with the text), if:

a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error).
the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
authors’ potential conflict(s) of interest have been disclosed post publication.

a. Errata

Upon notice of an important error introduced by JoSS that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the Authors or of the Journal, notification and correction of the error will be published as an Erratum, in consultation with the Corresponding Author as possible and appropriate.

The Erratum containing the corrected language will be linked to the original article, which will reflect that a correction has been made, and linking back to the Erratum. To preserve the published record, the original publication will not be altered.

Authors wishing to notify JoSS of perceived error may contact JoSS staff at editor@jossonline.org. The JoSS Editor-in-Chief is the final arbiter of whether such error meets the test of “importance” to merit publication of an Erratum.

b. Corrigenda

Upon notice of an important error introduced by the Author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the Authors or of the Journal, notification and correction of the error will be published as a Corrigendum, in consultation with the Corresponding Author and Peer Reviewers, as possible and appropriate.

Authors wishing to amend their previously published articles as a matter of correcting such important error must submit a Letter to the Editor requesting the correction, explaining the error and its significance, and presenting any implications on the research, along with transmittal of the corrected language.

At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, the corrected portion(s) may be circulated to Peer Reviewers for a determination of whether to proceed with publication of the Corrigendum. In any event, the Editor-in-Chief is the final arbiter of whether the error meets the test of “importance” to merit publication of a Corrigendum.

If the decision is to publish, the Letter to the Editor will be included in the upcoming JoSS issue, with links to the Corrigendum and corrected language, as well as to the original article. The original article will reflect that a correction has been made within, with an online link to the Corrigendum and corrected text. To preserve the published record, the original publication will not be altered.

c. Expression of Concern/Editorial Note

The EiC will consider issuing an expression of concern or editorial note if:

they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

C. Before or After Publication

As a final note, the EiC will consider withdrawing a submitted article before publication or retracting or removal of a published article if any of the conditions described below for retractions and removals apply.

1. Retraction

The EiC will consider retracting a publication if:

they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication / falsification) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing or permission.
it constitutes plagiarism (appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (including those obtained through confidential review of others’ manuscripts).
it reports unethical research.
the peer-review process has been compromised / manipulated and the scientific integrity of the article cannot be guaranteed.
authors’ conflict(s) of interest have been disclosed post publication and the disclosure is significant enough to potentially change the conclusions (in the judgment of the editor).

Notices of retraction should:

be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e., in all electronic versions).
clearly identify the retracted article (e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading).
be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment).
be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications.
be freely available to all readers (i.e., not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers).
state who is retracting the article.
state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error).
avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libelous.

2. Removal

Under the following circumstances, removing an article may be considered:

it is a clearly defamatory article.
it infringes others’ legal rights.
the article is (expected to be) the subject of a court order.
it contains a photograph in which a particular individual can be identified, or includes (personal) data that would lead to an individual being easily identified, particularly where the individual has not provided an appropriate consent or is legally incapable of providing such consent.
In some cases, quick action on an emergency basis is important in protecting the privacy of an individual or in the event that an article embargo has been accidentally ignored.