Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan

Research Misconduct Ide Bagus Siaputra

Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Surabaya

Pemerintah akan terbitkan aturan tentang integritas akademik

Selasa, 19 Februari 2019 20:46 WIB Dimyati memaklumi jika masalah integritas itu terjadi karena ketidaktahuan, namun tidak akan menoleransi kalau itu merupakan kesengajaan.

The continued citation of retracted papers — or — ‘zombie’ publications pollutes the scientific literature with fatally flawed studies. The problem is amplified by the common practice of accessing papers through third-party websites such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate and Sci-Hub , which generally do not link to retraction notices .

Publishers can ensure that citations of zombie publications are caught before new papers go to press by running AUTOMATED CROSS-CHECKS of manuscript reference lists against the Retraction Watch database of retracted papers (http://retractiondatabase.org) . https://retractionwatch.com/the-retractionwatch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-

What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about

science publishing’s ‘death penalty’ By Oct. 25, 2018 , 2:00 PM Much of the rise appears to reflect

IMPROVED OVERSIGHT at a growing number of journals.

http://ecojoin.org/index.php/EJE/article/view/388

Serological Evidence of Ebola Virus Infection in Indonesian Orangutans

Chairul A. Nidom , Eri Nakayama , Reviany V. Nidom, Mohamad Y. Alamudi, Syafril Daulay, Indi N. L. P. Dharmayanti, Yoes P. Dachlan, Mohamad Amin, Manabu Igarashi, Hiroko Miyamoto, Reiko Yoshida, Ayato Takada Published: July 18, 2012

Serological Evidence of Ebola Virus Infection in Indonesian Orangutans

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0012821X18301237?token=A6F71D3AE7C9239D9DD5291991015FA1BBE70EB0 https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1026918518300027?token=EEADBC143356B173619AF53FD730509B18D59BA7A606FDC511FA713927B694C6E8D3EF6F

_{AE96E7D664CE53D9B02484D0}

This article at the request of Editor-in-Chief. After a thorough

has been retracted

investigation, the Editor has concluded that the acceptance of this article was based

upon the positive advice of three

. The reports were illegitimate reviewer reports

submitted from email accounts which were provided to the journal as suggested reviewers during the

submission of the article. Although purportedly real reviewer accounts, the Editor has

concluded that these were not of appropriate, independent reviewers . This

manipulation of the peer-review process represents a clear violation of the fundamentals

of peer review, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards . Apologies are offered to

the reviewers whose identities were assumed and to the readers of the journal that

_{https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1026918518300027?token=EEADBC143356B173619AF53FD730509B18D59BA7A606FDC511FA713927B694C6E8D3EF6F}

this deception was not detected during the submission process.

_{AE96E7D664CE53D9B02484D0}

Wanted The growth in the number of academic papers outside Scopus-indexed journals is also impressive. Citing Google Scholar, the ministry’s academic database, Sinta, showed that in 2013 there were 86,510 papers and this grew to 157,892 in 2017. (Shutterstock/-) https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/10/wanted-6000-new-journals-to-publish- Harvard teaching hospital

https://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/27/harvard-teaching-hospital-pay-10- Famous Harvard economist

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/04/famous-harvard-economist-reused-parts-of-2002-

paper-multiple-times-says-journal/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/30/prominent-

psychologist-resigns-journal-editor-over-allegations-over-self-citation

Revolt over an editor? Retracted: Effects of Nano- Hydroxyapatite

Effects of Choukron Platelet

1 A B Unfortunately, figure 3 of this paper depicts HE- stained tissue sections identical to those depicted in figure 4 in a 2018 paper utilizing a rabbit model of mandibular damage and repair titled “Effect of Choukroun Platelet-Rich Fibrin Combined with

Autologous Micro-Morselized Bone on the Repair of Mandibular Defects in Rabbits” and published in the J Oral Maxillofac Surg., Epub 2017 Jun 2.

2 A B

2 A B Drosophila Muller F Elements

1.014 pengarang

5,154 pengarang https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/pay-or-retract-survey-creators-demands-

http://www.ijcmph.com/index.php/ijcmph/article/view/675/1042 http://www.ijcmph.com/index.php/ijcmph/article/view/675/1042

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2016/16_0044r.htm

Trubow forwarded us email correspondence that led

to in the International Journal of Integrative Medical Sciences for a similar copyright infringement issue regarding unlicensed use of the MMAS scale.

As part of that correspondence, the first author also
apologized to Trubow for the use of the scale, saying the

work was done by students who found the information

ONLINE FOR FREE. The researcher answered the questions

Trubow sent, then ASKED that the fee be waived , as the

work was done without any grant.

Trubow responded on December 28, 2016:

– There will be a cost of $750.00 (USD). This is a reduced fee for a corrective license. The usual cost for serious infringements is $1000.00. It costs us a lot of money to investigate and correct the infringements If you don’t want to pay the fee, I will not prepare the license. Let me know.

• A few hours later, the author wrote back, saying they were

no longer interested in using the scale, and HAD ASKED
THE JOURNAL TO REMOVE THE PAPER.

http://www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index.aspx COPE

CASE NUMBER : 18-01 CASE TEXT (ANONYMISED) A researcher has published a paper in our journal using a scale published in 2008. She wrote to the scale

developer in 2014/2015 at least three times (emails are on file) before the start of the project, but the scale

developer did not respond despite repeated email reminders. No indication of the need for a license was

received. In 2017, when the researcher published the paper using the above scale, she was contacted by a

person claiming that he was representing the scale's developer and asked for a retrospective license and

license fee, and threatened that if the she did not apply for a retrospective license and pay the license fee,

she may need to take legal responsibility and retract the published paper. He also said that if she does not

pay the fee, then the team’s lawyer would contact her. The name of the lawyer is given, with a gmail

account. No firm name or any other information is provided. The researcher has searched the internet and

found examples of this person asking other people to apply for a retrospective license and receiving money.

FOLLOW UP : The author withdrew the paper. The journal considers the case closed. RESOLUTION : Case Closed

CASE NUMBER : 18-04 CASE TEXT (ANONYMISED)

We have received a number of manuscripts involving a published scale where the scale’s developer is known

to comb the literature and ask those who used the scale for research to pay for a retroactive license, sometimes asking for very large sums of money.

ADVICE: The Forum asked if the journal had sought legal advice. There are copyright and licensing issues here that need to be addressed . Who holds copyright on the scale? Is the right to use the scale also copyrighted?

… The Forum agreed THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE , with no easy solution. A suggestion was to write an editorial, highlighting this issue. … The editor might consider contacting other joint editorial or opinion piece editors and producing a

, highlighting the issues around this type of this is not good for the behaviour and holding authors to ransom in this way, and emphasizing the fact that advancement of scientific knowledge or in the public interest .

RESOLUTION : On-going https://irb.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2018-11- 06%20v2%20Notice%20to%20Investigators%20re%20MMAS.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM C4656225/table/Tab2/?report=objectonly

What is your policy regarding access to critical research

Using copyright protected questionnaires and instruments

We explicitly discourage the use of copyright protected instruments. We encourage the

alternatives to copyright protected instruments

development and validation of . The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has recently discussed an increasing number of cases …. "the scale’s developer is known to … ask those who used the scale … to pay for a retroactive license, sometimes asking for very large sums of money" ( COPE condemned "this type of behaviour and holding authors to ransom in this way" and

"the fact that this is not good for the advancement of

recommends to emphasize scientific knowledge or in the public interest" . https://jmir.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000547811

JMIR has first hand experience with the following scale developers who have contacted us or the author threatening legal action. As a result, we strongly discourage authors to use these scales (and if they are used, authors are required to upload license agreements): MMAS JMIR had to publish

. As a result of the behavior of these

MULTIPLE CORRECTIONS

scale developers, JMIR has a standing SPECIAL CALL FOR PAPERS for short paper

instruments or electronic tools licensed under Creative Commons or available under an Open Source license that can be used instead of MMAS

to measure medication

adherence, and we WILL WAIVE THE ARTICLE SUBMISSION FEE for such development and a free alternative to

validation papers describing new instruments that can be used as MMAS . https://jmir.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000547811

https://i2.wp.com/writeonwithjamie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/academic- Nilai Integritas Akademik

kejujuran,
kredibilitas,
kewajaran,
kehormatan dan
tanggung jawab
KEBERANIAN

Kerangka Kerja untuk menumbuhkan kebijakan

INTEGRITAS AKADEMIK yang dapat diteladani

Figure 1: Framework for enacting exemplary academic integrity policy (Bretag & Mahmud 2013, under review)

Enam rekomendasi untuk menanamkan dan menumbuhkan budaya integritas akademik www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP

Regular review of academic integrity policy and process: Telaah dan perbaikan berkelanjutan.
Academic integrity champions: penghargaan bagi pemenang dan pahlawan.
Academic integrity education for all stakeholders:pendidikan bagi semua.
Student engagement: pelibatan (maha)siswa.
Robust decision making systems: sistem dan penanggungjawab.
Record keeping for evaluation: pendokumentasian terpusat.

Pengembangan diri
Dasar H>Training of trainer
Latar bela>Pelatihan dan lokakarya
Tu>Evaluasi integritas akademik
Lingkup dan Bat
Evaluasi etika publikasi
Identifikasi • Ragam d& Taksonomi

Pembinaan

Prevensi Mitigasi

(ps. 1-12) 13-16

Penanggulangan Penanggulangan Penyampaian Sanksi & penanganan

(ps. 22-34) laporan Rehabilitasi 17-21

Advo>Tindakla
Rehabilitasi

temuan & laporan

(nama dan perilaku)

Sa
Investigasi •Rekomendasi

Taksonomi Pelanggaran dalam Riset (Hall & Martin, 2018)

Appropriate conduct : Tepat (sesuai aturan) Diterima secara luas sebagai praktik ilmiah yang baik.
Misconduct (Pelanggaran)

– Questionable conduct (diragukan/dipertanyakan) Tidak ada aturan yang jelas tapi pelaku biasanya malu mengakui atau enggan mengungkapkannya.
– Inappropriate conduct (tidak/kurang tepat) Aturan ada namun bervariasi antar disiplin ilmu, negara, lembaga, dan/atau jurnal.
– Blatant misconduct (pelanggaran secara terang-terangan)
Pelanggaran terhadap aturan yang sudah jelas dan universal.

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018) Winsorization* HARKing

Melakukan pemilihan data Manipulasi Data Menghilangkan data

Fabrikasi data Falsifikasi data

Winsorization membobot lebih rendah atau memodifikasi skor outlier agar lebih sesuai dengan sampel.

HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are know

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018)

Karya Orang Lain Mengambil dan membangun di atas hasil karya orang lain

Muncuplik kalimat orang lain, memberikan pengakuan namun tanpa tanda petik Mengambil serangkaian kalimat tanpa sumber dan tanda petik

Kesalahan dalam melakukan kutipan atau mengakui karya orang lain

Plagiarisme seluruh naskah atau bagian Secara sengaja menghilangkan suatu bagian dalam sebuah karya (mis. proposal)

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018)

Berusaha keras melewatkan karya sendiri Menghindari swa-sitasi secara berlebihan Memaksimalkan luaran penelitian Swa-sitasi berlebihan (padahal tidak perlu/wajib)

Melaporkan penelitian secara tumpang-tindih Karya Publikasi secara salami (membagi kecil-kecil) Sendiri

Swa-plagiarisme Melaporkan hasil penelitian yang sama secara berulang-ulang (publikasi ganda)

Menggunakan teori atau data yang sama untuk (hanya untuk memberikan simpulan yang berbeda menerbitkan artikel berbeda)

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018) Kepengarangan

Melibatkan semua orang yang memiliki kontribusi substansial Mewajibkan seseorang menjadi pengarang (kecuali untuk pembimbing doktor/PhD)

Ghost authorship (menghilangkan orang) Gift authorship (melibatkan orang) Gift colluding (memberikan bantuan)

Gagal mengakui adanya konflik kepentingan

Klasifikasi Kesalahan Penelitian

(Kuroki, 2018)

Kesalahan kelas satu (Class I): Kebenaran

– (1) Fabrikasi – (2) Falsifikasi

Kesalahan kelas dua (Class II): Kepercayaan

– (1) Plagiarisme terhadap naskah/teks
– (2) Tidak dapat direproduksi (Irreproducibility)
– (3) Praktik penelitian yang tidak tepat

• Kesalahan kelas tiga (Class III): Risiko terhadap faktor
keamanan produk kesehatan dan industri

– (1) Risiko atas keamanan penggunaan produk kesehatan
– (2) Risiko atas keamanan penggunaan produk industri

Access: mudah diakses, dibaca, ditulis dengan baik, jelas, dan ringkas.
Approach: proses pendidikan dan dilakukan sejak dini
Responsibility: pemerataan tanggung jawab untuk semua yang terlibat.
Support: sistem pendukung (prosedur, sumber daya, kegiatan)
Detail: penjelasan secara lengkap tapi tidak berlebihan.

Kumpulan standar atau pedoman etis tentang (proses) publikasi demi tercapainya publikasi ilmiah yang berkualitas tinggi, kepercayaan publik pada temuan penelitian, dan memberikan penghargaan kepada pengarang sesuai dengan ide (gagasan) yang dihasilkan.

Biomedcentral (2019) Etika Publikasi https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/writing-resources/publication-ethics Etika Publikasi dan Integritas Ilmiah

Etika publikasi berfokus pada proses tata kelola publikasi secara etis.
• Integritas ilmiah/akademik berfokus pengenalan
dan penerapan nilai-nilai mendasar terkait perilaku berintegritas.

– Honesty (kejujuran)
– Trust (kepercayaan)
– Fairness (keadilan/kesetaraan)
– Respect (kehormatan/penghargaan)
– Responsibility (tanggungjawab)
– Courage (keberanian)

Integritas Akademik (1)

Tindakan yang didasari nilai-nilai kejujuran, kepercayaan, keadilan, kehormatan, dan rasa
tanggungjawab dalam proses belajar, mengajar,
dan penelitian.
Penting dimiliki dan dilaksanakan oleh maha(siswa), guru/dosen, peneliti, dan tenaga profesional di lingkungan akademik.

Exemplary Academic Integrity Project (EAIP): Embedding and extending exemplary academic integrity policy and support frameworks across the higher education sector (2013), Plain English definition of Academic Integrity, Office for Learning and Teaching Strategic Commissioned Project 2012-2013, http: www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP .

Integritas Akademik (2)

Kejujuran, kepercayaan, keadilan, kehormatan, dan rasa tanggungjawab Keohane (1999)
Keberanian (menghadapi tekanan dan tantangan; Fishman (2014)

Etika Publikasi dan Etika Penelitian

Etika publikasi lebih berfokus pada proses
pelaporan hasi penelitian (pasca-penelitian)
Etika penelitian lebih berfokus pada peneliti dan proses berlangsungnya penelitian

Etika Penelitian

Etika penelitian lebih berfokus pada peneliti dan proses berlangsungnya penelitian

– Hak asasi, privasi, dan kerahasiaan
– Budaya dan warisan budaya
– Pendaftaran uji klinis
– Perlakuan terhadap hewan penelitian
– Keamanan hayati (biosecurity)
– Panduan baku pelaporan hasil penelitian (reporting guideline)

Etika publikasi (dari sisi penulis)

Kekokohan dan keandalan hasil penelitian
Kejujuran • Keseimbangan • Originalitas (keaslian) penelitian
Transparansi • Kepengarangan dan pengakuan
Akuntabilitas dan tanggung jawab
Kepatuhan pada ulasan sejawat dan kesepakatan publikasi
• Melaporkan penelitian secara bertanggungjawab ketika
melibatkan manusia atau hewan.

Etika publikasi (editor/penerbit): COPE’s Core Practices

1. Tuduhan Pelanggaran

2. Kepengarangan dan kontribusi

3. Keluhan dan Banding

4. Benturan/persaingan Kepentingan

5. Data dan Reproduksibilitas

6. Pengawasan Etis

7. Hak milik intelektual

8. Pengelolaan jurnal

9. Proses ulasan sejawat

10. Diskusi dan Koreksi Pasca-publikasi