ASIP Scientific Integrity Policy

ASIP Scientific Integrity Policy

The ASIP Scientific Integrity Policy is based on recommendations from the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, the Council of Science Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, and the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity.

I. SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS

ASIP expects all authors to comply with generally accepted standards to avoid scientific misconduct. For more information, please see Section III on Scientific Misconduct - Definitions below.

ABSTRACT PEER REVIEW

All abstracts submitted to PISA for possible presentation at the conference will undergo a peer review process prior to acceptance. Abstracts are reviewed by members of the PISA Organizing Committee. Both Authors and Reviewers are expected to take their roles seriously, as detailed below. For information about the abstract review process, please see Reviewer Conduct.

AUTHOR CONDUCT

General Authorship Guidelines. Authorship is defined as 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the abstract or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be presented. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. By submitting an abstract to PISA, all the authors have the responsibility to ensure that the content of the abstract is scientifically defended in the poster presentation and/or any invited oral presentation. Failure to present the poster and to defend it by being present to answer questions during assigned time periods is a violation of the ASIP Scientific Integrity Policy and may result in forfeiture of the right to submit an abstract to a future meeting.

II. REVIEW OF ABSTRACTS – REVIEWER CONDUCT

Peer Review Process. Reviewers of abstracts are expected to take their obligation seriously and to consider carefully the merits of the abstract being assessed. It is considered a violation for peer reviewers to identify themselves or attempt to communicate directly with authors regarding the abstract without the express permission of the Chair of the Organizing Committee.

Confidentiality. The abstract is considered a privileged communication. When reviewing an abstract, the peer reviewer takes responsibility for maintaining its confidentiality. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted abstracts for personal use after completing their review. Reviewers are not 2 allowed to make any use of the work described in the abstract or take advantage of the knowledge gained by reviewing it until and unless it is published.

Financial Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. Reviewers should disclose to the ASIP Organizing Committee Chair and the ASIP Executive Officer any affiliations with any organization or entity having a direct financial or personal interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the abstract that could bias their opinions. Reviewers should also consider potential conflicts of interest arising from personal relationships or academic competition. Personal relationships include family members, colleagues (such as collaborators, mentors, students, or trainees), or associates at a Reviewer’s institution. Such disclosures do not automatically disqualify a Reviewer and shall be reviewed by the Organizing Committee Chair for resolution and management. Reviewers should err on the side of caution and should consult with the Chair of the Organizing Committee when in doubt about a potential conflict of interest. By agreeing to review an abstract, Reviewers implicitly affirm that any potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to the Organizing Committee and that they are able to provide an impartial review of the abstract.

III. SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT - DEFINITIONS

Scientific Misconduct. According to the US Office of Research Integrity (http://ori.dhhs.gov/), “fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them; falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record; plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” ASIP has a zero tolerance policy for such matters. For details regarding how ASIP handles such matters, see the later section on Possible Misconduct.

Fabrication of Data. Any evidence of fraudulent methods, data, or data analysis may prompt ASIP to request an explanation and access to original data, which the authors must supply.

Falsification of Data. The results presented in the abstract and, if accepted, subsequent poster and/or oral presentation must accurately represent the data obtained in the course of the authors’ studies; omission of contradictory or negative data in an effort to support the main hypothesis is unacceptable. No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel or blot, or from different gels or blots, fields, or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (eg, using dividing lines) and in the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable only if they are applied to the whole image, whether experimental or control image, and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Any evidence of inappropriate manipulation may prompt EB sponsoring societies to request an explanation and access to original data, which the authors must make available.

Plagiarism. Authors should carefully note that the use of another person’s data or ideas without permission constitutes plagiarism. Authors may not republish copyrighted material in whole or in part without the express permission of the copyright holder. Likewise, copyrighted material previously published in another form may not be published without express permission from the original copyright holder. These rules cover work previously published by the authors. Authors wishing to 3 republish images, tables, or text should be prepared to provide proof of such permission and should include the appropriate attribution in the figure or table legend of the poster and/or oral presentation.

Redundant Publication. “Redundant (or duplicate) publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic media,” as defined by the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org). Authors must certify upon submission that the abstract has not been accepted or published elsewhere and/or that it is not currently under review for another meeting. Please note that while most journals allow future submissions of manuscripts based on data previously presented as meeting abstracts, authors should still contact the journal’s editorial office for guidance before submitting a manuscript based on a PISA 2016 abstract for future publication.

REPORTING SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT. ASIP welcomes reporting of possible misconduct or other concerns related to abstracts under review. Suspected misconduct relating to Authors, Reviewers, or ASIP staff should be reported in writing to the ASIP Executive Officer. If justified, suspected misconduct will be referred to the authors’ institution for investigation. Willful misconduct does not include incidents of honest misjudgment or inadvertent error. The anonymity of the whistleblower(s) will be maintained throughout any procedural review. With respect to all other communications arising from examination of misconduct, the ability to effectively investigate and administer an allegation of scientific misconduct shall be carefully balanced with the need to maintain confidentiality in order to protect the rights and reputations of all concerned.

PLEASE ALSO SEE THE ASIP 2018 CODE OF CONDUCT – PISA