Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

A new dimension in publishing ethics: social media-based ethics-related accusations

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (Independent Researcher, Kagawa-ken, Japan)
Judit Dobránszki (Research Institute of Nyíregyháza, IAREF, University of Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Hungary)

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society

ISSN: 1477-996X

Publication date: 12 August 2019

Abstract

Purpose

Whistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic, and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined.

Findings

Four issues in the Neuroskeptic–Wager case were debated: the solicitation by Wager to publish in RIPR; the use of commercial software by Neuroskeptic to make anonymous reports to journals; the links between “publication ethics” leaders and whistle-blowers or pseudonymous identities; the issues of transparency and possible hidden conflicts of interest. Only one publisher (Wiley) out of 15 scientific publishers examined claimed in its official ethical guidelines that anonymous reports should be investigated in the same way as named reports, while three publishers (Inderscience, PLOS and Springer Nature) referred to the COPE guidelines.

Originality/value

No such Twitter-based case has yet been examined in detail in the publishing ethics literature.

Keywords

  • Social media
  • Twitter
  • Academic publishing
  • Anonymity
  • Cronyism
  • Conflict of interest
  • Indexing

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Keith M. Kendrick (Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, PR China) for clarification about the validity of the claims made in the Leonid Schneider Tweets.

Conflicts of interest: The first author has been profiled at or by Retraction Watch and PubPeer and was banned from commenting by Leonid Schneider at his blog “forbetterscience”. Apart from this, the authors declare no other conflicts of interest. All screenshots under the fair-use agreement (Teixeira da Silva, 2015a, 2015b).

Citation

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. and Dobránszki, J. (2019), "A new dimension in publishing ethics: social media-based ethics-related accusations", Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-05-2018-0051

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here