MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoting Ethical Conduct in the Publication of Research

2008· editorial· en· W2031742246 on OpenAlex
Jane E. Freedman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Therapeutics · 2008
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonestyEngineering ethicsTransparency (behavior)MedicineConflict of interestPublic relationsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adhering to sound principles in the practice of scientific research is vital and maintaining these practices in the publication of this research is a necessity. Because there is strength in unified voice and these principles are of common interest, the editors of the leading international cardiovascular journals, including Cardiovascular Therapeutics, have developed a document that lists ethical principles that editors and authors can readily embrace. The document, published in this issue, highlights the importance of avoiding conflict of interest, plagiarism, excessive claims, and establishing guidelines for authorship. We believe these principles will establish sound publication standards for authors and editors alike. Over the past several years, the editors of leading international cardiovascular journals have met to form the HEART group and to discuss areas of growing, common interest. Recently, the HEART group has developed a document that addresses general ethical principles in the conduct of the scientific process with which all of the editors concur. Published essentially simultaneously in all of the participating journals, including this Journal, this document presents the ethical tenets accepted by all of the undersigned editors that will (continue to) guide their decisions in the editorial process. These are the general principles on which the HEART group is based and by which we, as a group, abide; however, please note that individual journal members and their respective societies may have their own rules and regulations that supersede the guidelines of the HEART group. The purpose of this is to ensure transparency and honesty in the scientific process that promotes ethical conduct in the performance and publication of research. The following will be considered as parts of this process: Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest for all involved in the performance of research and in the evaluation and publication process of a manuscript. Relevant relationships with commercial interests will be defined in terms of levels and nature of support. The nature of support will be listed as grants, supplies/equipment, type of employment, or personal income. Equity and royalty interests should be stated as well as any fiduciary relationship with the sponsor. Establish thorough review processes, particularly alert to discovering scientific fraud and data falsification, redundant or duplicate publication, and plagiarism, and to adopt a uniform standard of dealing with authors guilty of fraudulent practices. Maintain confidentiality and embargos where appropriate. Create uniform criteria to establish authorship. To qualify for authorship, individuals must have made substantial contributions to the intellectual content of the article in at least one of the following areas: conceived and designed the research, acquired the data, analyzed and interpreted the data, performed statistical analysis, handled funding and supervision, drafted the manuscript, or made critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Authors must give final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version to be published. For multicenter trials, individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript should fully meet the criteria for authorship previously defined; contributors not meeting these criteria should be acknowledged. Note avoidance of false claims of ownership and priority by attention to previous publications. Establish avoidance of excessive claims of benefits of a product/technique in the publication as well as with news media. Note compliance with institutional review board requirements and, when appropriate, approved laboratory procedures for animal research, and that the research conforms to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki, the Geneva Declaration, the Belmont Report, and Good Clinical Practices from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the submission conforms to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication” (http://www.ICMJE.org). Acta CardiologicaHugo Ector, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief Patrizio Lancellotti, MDEditor-in-Chief American Journal of CardiologyWilliam C. Roberts, MDEditor-in-Chief American Journal of Geriatric CardiologyNanette K. Wenger, MDEditor-in-Chief Annals of Noninvasive ElectrocardiologyArthur J. Moss, MDEditor-in-Chief Canadian Journal of CardiologyEldon R. Smith, MDEditor-in-Chief CardiologyJeffrey S. Borer, MDEditor-in-Chief Cardiosource Review JournalKim A. Eagle, MDEditor-in-Chief Cardiovascular Drugs and TherapyWillem J. Remme, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief Cardiovascular ResearchHans Michael Piper, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief Cardiovascular TherapeuticsJane Freedman, MDEditor-In-Chief Henry Krum, PhDEditor-In-Chief Chim Lang, MDEditor-In-Chief Catheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsChristopher J. White, MDEditor-in-Chief CirculationJoseph Loscalzo, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief Circulation ResearchEduardo Marban, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief Coronary Artery DiseaseBurton E. Sobel, MDEditor Current Opinion in CardiologyRobert Roberts, MDEditor Current Problems in CardiologyShahbudin H. Rahimtoola, MDEditor EuropaceA. John Camm, MDEditor-in-Chief European Heart JournalFrans Van de Werf, MDEditor-in-Chief European Journal of Heart FailureKarl Swedberg, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief HeartAdam D. Timmis, MDEditor Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical CareKathleen S. Stone, PhD, RNEditor-in-Chief Heart RhythmDouglas P. Zipes, MDEditor-in-Chief International Journal of Interventional CardioangiologyDavid G. Iosseliani, MDEditor-in-Chief Journal of Cardiovascular PharmacologyMichael R. Rosen, MDEditor Journal of Interventional CardiologyCindy L. Grines, MDEditor Journal of the American College of CardiologyAnthony N. DeMaria, MDEditor-in-Chief JACC: Cardiovascular ImagingJagat Narula, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief JACC: Cardiovascular InterventionsSpencer B. King III, MDEditor-in-Chief Journal of ElectrocardiologyGalen S. Wagner, MDEditor-in-Chief Journal of Interventional Cardiac ElectrophysiologySanjeev Saksena, MDEditor-in-Chief Journal of the American Society of EchocardiographyAlan S. Pearlman, MDEditor-in-Chief Journal of Heart Valve DiseaseRobert W. Emery, MDIncoming Editor-in-Chief Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryLawrence H. Cohn, MDEditor-in-Chief Netherlands Heart JournalErnst E. van der Wall, MDEditor-in-Chief Pediatric CardiologyRa-id Abdulla, MDEditor-in-Chief Progress in Cardiovascular DiseasesMichael Lesch, MDEditor Scandinavian Cardiovascular JournalRolf Ekroth, MDChief Editor

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0080.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.695
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.076 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it