Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan

(1)

Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan

Research Misconduct

Ide Bagus Siaputra

(2)

Pemerintah akan terbitkan aturan tentang integritas akademik

Selasa, 19 Februari 2019 20:46 WIB

(3)

(4)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05386-5

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

(5)

(6)

What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about

science publishing’s ‘death penalty’

ByJeffrey Brainard,Jia YouOct. 25, 2018 , 2:00 PM

Much of the rise appears to reflect

IMPROVED

(7)

(8)

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

This article

has been retracted

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

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

upon the positive advice of three

illegitimate reviewer reports

.

The reports were 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

this deception was not detected during the submission process.

(15)

(16)

(17)

Wanted

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/10/wanted-6000-new-journals-to-publish-150000-papers.html The growth in the number of academic papers outside Scopus-indexed journals is also

(18)

Harvard teaching hospital

(19)

Famous Harvard economist

(20)

Revolt over an editor?

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

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 MandibularDefects in Rabbits” and published in the J Oral Maxillofac Surg., Epub 2017 Jun 2.

1

2 A

(25)

1

2 A

B

1

2 A

(26)

Drosophila Muller F Elements

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25740935

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

• Trubow forwarded us email correspondence that led

to

another recent retraction

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

(35)

(36)

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.

https://publicationethics.org/case/license-using-published-scale

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

RESOLUTION : Case Closed

YEAR : 2018

(37)

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.

https://publicationethics.org/case/licence-published-scale

RESOLUTION : On-going

YEAR : 2018

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

editors and producing a joint editorial or opinion piece, highlighting the issues around this type of

(38)

(39)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM

(40)

What is your policy regarding access to critical research

https://jmir.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000547811

Using copyright protected questionnaires and instruments

We explicitly discourage the use of copyright protected instruments. We encourage the development and validation of alternatives to copyright protected instruments.

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" (https://publicationethics.org/case/licence-published-scale)

COPE condemned "this type of behaviour and holding authors to ransom in this way" and recommends to emphasize "the fact that this is not good for the advancement of

(41)

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

MULTIPLE CORRECTIONS

. As a result of the behavior of these

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 validation papers describing new instruments that can be used as a free alternative to

(42)

Wanted

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/10/wanted-6000-new-journals-to-publish-150000-papers.html The growth in the number of academic papers outside Scopus-indexed journals is also

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

Nilai Integritas Akademik

• kejujuran,

• kredibilitas,

• kewajaran,

• kehormatan dan

• tanggung jawab

(49)

Kerangka Kerja untuk menumbuhkan

kebijakan

INTEGRITAS AKADEMIK

yang dapat diteladani

(50)

• 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.

Enam rekomendasi untuk menanamkan dan

menumbuhkan budaya integritas akademik

(51)

(52)

• Tindaklanjut temuan & laporan

• Investigasi

•Rekomendasi

• Advokasi

• Rehabilitasi

(nama dan perilaku)

• Sanksi

•Pengembangan diri

•Training of trainer

•Pelatihan dan lokakarya

•Evaluasi integritas akademik

•Evaluasi etika publikasi

•Dasar Hukum

•Latar belakang

•Tujuan

•Lingkup dan Batasan

•Identifikasi

•Ragam d& Taksonomi

Pembinaan

(53)

• 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.

Taksonomi Pelanggaran dalam Riset

(54)

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan

Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018)

Manipulasi

Data

Winsorization*

HARKing

Melakukan pemilihan data

Menghilangkan data

Fabrikasi data

Falsifikasi data

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

(55)

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

(56)

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, dan

Pelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018)

Karya

Sendiri

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

Publikasi secara

salami (membagi kecil-kecil)

Swa-plagiarisme

Melaporkan hasil penelitian yang sama secara

berulang-ulang (publikasi ganda)

Menggunakan teori atau data yang sama untuk

memberikan simpulan yang berbeda

(hanya untuk

(57)

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)

(58)

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

(59)

• 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.

Lima elemen utama kebijakan integitas

akademik

(60)

(61)

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

(62)

• 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)

(63)

• 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 .

(64)

• Kejujuran, kepercayaan,

keadilan, kehormatan, dan

rasa tanggungjawab Keohane

(1999)

• Keberanian (menghadapi

tekanan dan tantangan;

Fishman (2014)

(65)

• Etika publikasi lebih berfokus pada proses

pelaporan hasi penelitian (pasca-penelitian)

• Etika penelitian lebih berfokus pada peneliti

dan proses berlangsungnya penelitian

(66)

• 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

)

(67)

• 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.

(68)

68

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

(https://publicationethics.org)

Etika publikasi (editor/penerbit):

(69)

COPE’s Core Practices

69

1. Tuduhan Pelanggaran

Jurnal harus memiliki proses yang dijabarkan dengan jelas untuk menangani dugaan (tuduhan) adanya pelanggaran, terlepas dari bagaimana dugaan/tuduhan tersebut dimunculkan

Jurnal harus menanggapi dengan serius dugaan pelanggaran pra-publikasi dan pasca-publikasi.

(70)

COPE’s Core Practices

70

2. Kepengarangan dan kontribusi

Jurnal harus memiliki kebijakan yang jelas perihal persyaratan menjadi penulis dan kontributor. Kebijakan tersebut harus memungkinkan terjadinya transparansi tentang bentuk kontribusi dan seberapa besar kontribusi dari tiap penulis.

(71)

COPE’s Core Practices

71

3. Keluhan dan Banding

(https://publicationethics.org) Jurnal harus memiliki proses yang dijabarkan dengan jelas dalam

(72)

COPE’s Core Practices

72

4. Benturan/persaingan Kepentingan

Jurnal harus memberikan penjabaran yang jelas tentang definisi dan proses yang akan dilakukan untuk menangani terjadinya benturan (konflik) kepentingan antara kepentingan antara penulis, mitra bebestari, editor, dan penerbit.

(73)

COPE’s Core Practices

73

5. Data dan reproduksi hasil penelitian

Jurnal harus menyusun dan menjabarkan kebijakan tentang ketersediaan data,

mendorong penggunaan pedoman pelaporan (reporting guideline), dan pendaftaran

(74)

COPE’s Core Practices

74

6. Pengawasan Etis

(75)

COPE’s Core Practices

75

7. Hak milik intelektual

(https://publicationethics.org) Semua kebijakan tentang kekayaan intelektual, termasuk hak cipta dan lisensi penerbitan, harus dijabarkan dengan jelas.

Sebagai tambahan, biaya apa pun yang terkait dengan penerbitan harus jelas bagi para penulis dan pembaca.

Jurnal wajib memiliki kebijakan yang jelas tentang apa yang dianggap sebagai prapublikasi sehingga tidak dapat diterbitkan.

(76)

COPE’s Core Practices

76

8. Pengelolaan jurnal

(https://publicationethics.org) Jurnal perlu merancang dan membangun infrastruktur yang dijabarkan dan dilaksanakan secara baik terkait pengelolaan jurnal.

Hal ini meliputi model bisnis, kebijakan, proses dan perangkat lunak

(77)

COPE’s Core Practices

77

9. Proses Ulasan Sejawat

(https://publicationethics.org) Seluruh proses ulasan sejawat harus dijelaskan secara transparan

dan dikelola dengan baik.

(78)

COPE’s Core Practices

78

10. Diskusi dan Koreksi Pasca-publikasi

Jurnal wajib mengizinkan terjadinya diskusi dan perdebatan pasca-publikasi, baik pada situs jurnal mereka, melalui pengiriman surat (Email) kepada editor, atau pada situs yang dikelola pihak eksternal, misalnya PubMed Commons atau PubPeer.

(79)

Prinsip transparansi dalam

pengelolaan jurnal

1. Website

2. Nama Jurnal

3. Proses Peer Review

4. Kepemilikan dan Manajemen

5. Struktur Organisasi

6. Informasi tentang tim

Editor/Kontak

7. Hak Cipta dan Perizinan

8. Biaya Penulis

9. Dugaan Pelanggaran Akademik

10. Etika Publikasi

11. Jadwal Penerbitan

12. Akses

13. Perarsipan

14. Sumber Pendapatan

15. Periklanan

(80)

Taksonomi Kasus dari COPE

1. Hal Kepengarangan

2. Benturan Kepentingan

3. Persetujuan Untuk Publikasi

4. Kontributor

5. Hak Cipta

6. Koreksi Sastra

7. Data

8. Kemandirian Editor

9. Pendanaan/Sponsor

10. Metrik

11. Lain-Lain

12. Pelanggaran/Perilaku Yang

Dipertanyakan

13. Kesalahan

14. Ulasan sejawat

15. Plagiarisme

16. Penelitian Yang

dipertanyakan/Tidak Etis

17. Publikasi yang

Berlebihan/Duplikasi

18. Pelapor pelanggaran

(81)

Contoh pelanggaran

Kasus 01. Ada artikel yang memiliki kemiripan dengan banyak sumber.

Kasus 02. Ada artikel yang memiliki kemiripan tinggi dengan satu-dua

artikel lain.

Kasus 03. Ada artikel yang tergolong self-plagiarism

Kasus 04. Artikel dalam versi sama (published/final version) tersimpan di

sejumlah website berbeda.

Kasus 05. Penerbit jurnal tergolong meragukan

Kasus 06. Ada temuan (hasil penelitian) yang tergolong mencurigakan.

–

Koefisien korelasi yang terlalu besar

Kasus 07. Rekayasa sumber acuan

–

Informasi yang diambil tergolong informasi umum atau setidaknya

pengetahuan umum pada bidang ilmu terkait.

(82)