|Year : 2021 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 103-104
Are we “CLUE” less?
Girish Malleshappa Sogi
Editor-in-Chief - Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Department of Public Health Dentistry, MM College of Dental Sciences and Research, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University), Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
|Date of Web Publication||13-Jun-2021|
Prof. Girish Malleshappa Sogi
Editor-in-Chief - Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Department of Public Health Dentistry, MM College of Dental Sciences and Research, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University), Mullana, Ambala, Haryana
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Sogi GM. Are we “CLUE” less?. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12:103-4
Since the last few decades, we have access to more scientific knowledge than ever before. For better or worse, global research output doubles every nine years, although it might be an undercount for true expansion as no database captures everything. Amid the gigantic increase in scientific publication, there is a disturbing surge in scientific misconduct too. It is potentially detrimental because decisions on future research, health policies, and interventions are often based on existing or novel scientific literature. Being an ardent proponent of scientific integrity, I have come across numerous instances of scientific mischiefs in real-life circumstances during my academic journey.
Scientific misconduct is not a cocooned enterprise; it should be identified and rectified by researchers, institutions, and journals collaboratively. There are guidelines for researchers for ethical conduct of research, recommendations for journals put forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Ethics, and World Medical Association to adopt best practices and maintain superlative ethical standards, but the role of research organizations or institutions promoting scientific integrity is still in infancy. Research institutions are responsible for maintaining work environment that promotes honesty and ethical behavior among researchers to ensure highest standards of scientific practices. It is almost like an interrelated/inseparable and dependent three-tier system among researcher, research institute, and a journal. To bring coordination between research institutes and journals, COPE has given guidelines and very recently, a working group of Cooperation and Liaison between Universities and Editors (CLUE) has also given its recommendation on cases of research integrity. CLUE guidelines stress on the development of institutional mechanisms for assessing the integrity of research conducted and/or published under their auspices and create the office of research integrity/officer at the administrative level to stringently promote ethical values in the conduct, management, and reporting of research. In fact, institutions and journals together should encourage best practices among researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors (e.g., by policy development and training). On the other hand, the institute should volunteer to report proven misconduct or attribution of work that their employees/researchers have published and journals should also pass on research integrity concerns to institutions for inquiry. Most importantly, the institutions should provide leadership in support of responsible conduct of research, take the responsibility of the work, and evoke the highest possible standards of scientific research.
From ancient Bharat to modern India, ethics have always played an important role in our education system, University Grants Commission (UGC), the premier statutory organization for university education has stressed enough on maintaining honesty and integrity in academics. For the curtailment of deteriorating academic integrity, UGC has set up Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics and approved compulsory two credit courses on “Research and Publication Ethics” for all PhD students. There is a dire need to implement CLUE guidelines at the level of dental institutions around the country and also advocate the development of sufficient training material to provide the substantive knowledge, skills, and competencies to researcher pertaining to research integrity and ethics.
Needless to say, honesty, truthfulness, and transparency govern the conduct and publication of research.
| Bibliography|| |
Patwardhan B, Desai A, Chourasia A, Nag S, Bhatnagar R. Guidance Document: Good Academic Research Practices. New Delhi: University Grants Commission; 2020.
University Grants Commission's (UGC)-Public Notice on Academic Integrity Ref.No.F.1-1/2018 (Journals/CARE) Dated 14th June 2019. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6315352_UGC-Public-Notice-CARE.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 May 27].
University Grants Commission's (UGC)-D.O.No.F.1-1/2018(Journal/CARE) December 2019. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/9836633_Research-and-Publication-Ethics.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 May 27].
Wager E, Kleinert S. On Behalf of COPE Council. Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity Cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); March 2012. Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org. [Last accessed on 2021 May 27].
Scott-Lichter D, Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. 3rd Revised ed. Wheat Ridge, CO; 2012.
Wager E, Kleinert S; CLUE Working Group. Cooperation and Liaison between Universities and Editors (CLUE): Recommendations on best practice. Res Integr Peer Rev 2021;6:6.