Editorial
Promoting Ethical Integrity in Publishing Cindy Peternelj-Taylor, MSc, BScN, RN, DF-IAFN Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Forensic NursingW
s the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Forensic Nursing (JFN), I have had the good fortune of attending recent conferences of the International Academy of Nurse Editors, where I have learned a great deal regarding best practices in publishing. At the meeting in 2011, and again in 2012, informative interactive sessions complete with lively deliberations related to ongoing ethical issues in publishing were featured. Likewise, in recent years, numerous editorials (Froman & Jennings, 2013; Poster, Pearson, & Pierson, 2012; Swaan, 2010) and scholarly articles (Erlen, 2002; Freda & Kearney, 2005; Poff, 2009) dedicated to common ethical transgressions have been published in a variety of professional journals. And although ethical issues related to publishing likely have always existed, there is currently heightened awareness regarding the impact of such transgressions on the scientific integrity of nursing and other scholarly disciplines. My intention in writing this editorial is twofold: (1) to provide readers, potential authors, and reviewers with a brief overview of the common ethical issues associated with the publication process; and (2) to offer some practical guidance for minimizing such problems.
A
Instructions for Authors When discussing ethical issues inherent in publishing, I always like to start with the Instructions for Authors (http:// edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ifauth.htm). These were recently revised by members of the JFN Editorial Board to provide greater clarity regarding authorship responsibility, disclosure, and copyright transfer; style; and types and lengths of manuscripts that are considered for publication, as well as online submission-specific guidelines. These instructions provide authors with critical information as manuscripts that “do not comply” with these guidelines will be returned to authors for their attention and correction, thereby delaying any considerations for publication. And Author Affiliation: University of Saskatchewan. The editor has disclosed no conflict of interest. Correspondence: Cindy Peternelj-Taylor, MSc, BScN, RN, DF-IAFN, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5 Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses DOI: 10.1097/JFN.0b013e318294cff8
Journal of Forensic Nursing
although some may feel that the detailed information required as part of the submission process is merely an exercise in aggravation, these steps are necessary in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process. Therefore, to facilitate a seamless submission process—while, at the same time, keeping stress levels in check—I recommend that all potential authors (novice and expert alike) carefully examine these instructions before submitting their papers for review. Likewise, peer reviewers should also be intimately familiar with these instructions to provide relevant and informed feedback as part of the peer review process. As per our instructions for authors, “all manuscripts must be original work, not previously published (or considered for publication elsewhere), and submitted exclusively to the JFN” (http://edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ ifauth.htm). This statement is particularly significant, as it speaks to common ethical transgressions noted in editorial practice and illustrated in contemporary literature: plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), duplicate or redundant publications, and simultaneous submissions.
Plagiarism, Duplicate Publications, and Simultaneous Submissions Readers look to articles published in the JFN to inform their practice, to underpin their research, and to support their leadership in forensic nursing. They expect that publications have not only stood the scrutiny of the peer review process but, moreover, that they are original contributions to the literature. When authors intentionally or unintentionally engage in plagiarism, attempt to pass off a duplicate publication as an original, or simultaneously submit the same manuscript to several journals, the implicit trust and integrity that is expected of a scientific or scholarly publication is violated. Foster (2007) states that “avoiding plagiarism is simple: always give credit where credit is due” (p. 1). However, following such a simple edict is sometimes easier said than done, as in some cases, plagiarism results from a lack of understanding and carelessness, whereas in other cases, the intent to deceive is particularly noteworthy (King & Murphy, 2006). Whether one is citing direct quotes or paraphrasing the ideas of another, acknowledgement of the source is required. Failure to do so gives the impression that what is presented—whether it be another’s words, www.journalforensicnursing.com
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
65
Editorial ideas, or theories—originated with the author and not the original source. Plagiarism represents a serious ethical violation, one that is equated with stealing (intellectual property/ literary theft), academic dishonesty, and fraud. The impact of plagiarism on the author of the original source, the scholarly community, and the plagiarizer can be profound (Oermann & Hays, 2010). As a rule of thumb, authors should cite all ideas and information that are not their own, and/or, are not common knowledge. In such cases, it is always best to err on the side of caution, as “errors of commission are better than errors of omission” (Erlen, 2002, p. 70). An exception to this rule, however, is when the author’s information has already been published. Like plagiarism, self-plagiarism is also a concern in the publishing world. Self-plagiarism is defined as “the not so-uncommon practice of ‘re-using’ some of one’s own already published writings in a subsequently published article” (Broome, 2004, p. 273). Authors need to treat the information gleaned from their own publications as they would any other publication and cite the source accordingly (i.e., cite themselves). Similarly, related forms of self-plagiarism, such as redundant or duplicate publications, also undermine the publication process. Morse (2007) defines a duplicate publication as a “republication of an article (or a thinly disguised version of an article) in a second journal, without acknowledgement of, or without obtaining permission from, the copyright holder of the first journal” (p. 1307). To be clear, the sin of duplicate publication is not something solely restricted to journal publications but includes all resources, including print and online books, journals, Internet resources, and blogs (King, 2009). Broome (2004) concludes that it is the misrepresentation of the manuscript under the pretext of something original that is central to this discussion. In my experience, I have seen the full gamut—from a few sentences or paragraphs to whole sections of text that are recycled verbatim. Freda and Kearney (2005) found that the issue of duplicate publication or plagiarism was a topic of concern for 25% of nurse editors (n = 88) who took part in an online survey focused on publication ethics. When plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and/or duplicate publications are noted, the integrity and trustworthiness of the whole manuscript comes into question. As a result, because of the serious nature of plagiarism and the negative sequelae of such actions, many journals are systematically assessing all submissions via plagiarism-checking software (Froman & Jennings, 2013). Likewise, the JFN has at its fingertips CrossCheck, a duplication detection service provided by iThenticate, a plagiarism-prevention program. Another related ethical concern is that of simultaneous submissions, whereby the same manuscript is submitted for consideration to more than one journal. Also known as shotgunning (Oermann & Hays, 2010), authors who partake in such practices do so in hopes of increasing their 66
www.journalforensicnursing.com
likelihood of being published. Such practices are clearly dishonest; they mislead editors, deceive reviewers who may be assigned to review the submission, and violate the implied trust inherent in the publishing process (Erlen, 2002). As part of JFN’s manuscript submission process, authors are required to answer the question: “Has this manuscript been concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere?” Rather than sending simultaneous submissions, authors should consider sending query letters instead. A well-crafted query letter that clearly outlines the focus of the article can help maximize an author’s publication potential by ascertaining the editor’s interest and determining the goodness of fit. Furthermore, authors in good faith can send out as many query letters to editors as they wish, and depending on the responses they receive, this may assist them in selecting the most appropriate journals for their manuscripts.
Copyright Transfer, Conflicts of Interest, and Authorship When submitting a manuscript for review for potential publication in the JFN, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the copyright transfer form is completed and uploaded for each author at the time of submission of the article (http://edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/ accounts/copyrightTransfer.pdf). This step is fundamental; an incomplete copyright transfer will delay the whole process, as manuscripts will not be sent out for review until all authors have completed and signed the form. The authorship responsibility, disclosure, and copyright transfer form outlines the conditions of submission, including the responsibilities and rights of the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN), which owns the copyright; the author(s); and the publisher, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Because the copyright transfer form is submitted at the same time the article is submitted (i.e., before any editorial decisions), the IAFN holds the copyright during the submission and review process. If the manuscript is not accepted for publication, the copyright reverts back to the authors, who then are free to submit their manuscript to another journal of their choice (Oermann & Hays, 2010). As per the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2010) in its “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals,” authors are required to disclose information related to financial relationships, for example, “employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony” (p. 4), as such potential conflicts of interest could cast doubt on the impartiality of the author and the credibility of the manuscript under consideration. Finally, as per the instructions for authors: “All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. Each author should have contributed significantly to the Volume 9 • Number 2 • April-June 2013
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Editorial
TABLE 1. Publishing Resources The following organizations are excellent sources of information of relevance to novice and experienced authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/ Council of Science Editors: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: http:// www.icmje.org/ International Academy of Nurse Editors: http://www.nursingeditorsinane.org Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ World Association of Medical Editors: http://www.wame.org/ resources
conception and design of the work and writing the manuscript to take public responsibility for it” (http://edmgr. ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ifauth.htm). More specifically, authorship is based on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2010, p. 3). In short, authorship establishes accountability, responsibility, and credibility (Erlen, 2002). Unfortunately, abuses in authorship, such as guest authors (individuals listed as authors who do not meet the criteria for authorship) and ghost authors (individuals who may be the actual writers and meet the criteria for authorship but who are not listed as authors), are a fairly common phenomenon. Furthermore, researchers and authors are increasingly writing in collaborative teams (sometimes across multiple sites and locations), which can at times challenge the collective wisdom of the group in determining authorship. It may well be that not all team members are listed as authors on all publications, and those who contributed in other ways (e.g., recruitment, administration, technical support) should be recognized in the acknowledgements.
Final Thoughts Promoting ethical integrity in publishing requires that readers, authors, reviewers, and editors are all on the same
Journal of Forensic Nursing
page, so to speak, operating from the same frame of reference. The JFN publishes original articles, reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor. Building the science of forensic nursing requires the ethical commitment of our forensic nursing community. Discussions surrounding ethics are rarely so definitive as to preclude further discourse and debate. I hope that this editorial has challenged you to think deeply about your thoughts, beliefs, and responsibilities when it comes to the ethical dissemination of information. Additional helpful resources are found in Table 1. As always, I welcome your comments, your questions, and your concerns.
▪
References
Broom, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52(6), 273–274. Erlen, J. A. (2002). Writing for publication: Ethical considerations. Orthopaedic Nursing, 21(6), 68–71. Foster, R. L. (2007). Avoiding unintentional plagiarism. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 12(1), 1–2. Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 27(4), 487–499. Froman, R. D., & Jennings, B. M. (2013). When others wrote it first. Research in Nursing & Health, 36, 113–115. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2010). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html King, C. R. (2009). Issues and best practices related to ethical writing and publishing. Journal of the Association of Vascular Access, 14, 40–45. King, T. L., & Murphy, P. A. (2006). Editorial policies and publication ethics. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 51(2), 69–70. Morse, J. M. (2007). Duplicate publication. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1307–1308. Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. C. (2010). Writing for publication in nursing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Poff, D. (2009). Reflections on ethics in journal publications. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 51–55. Poster, E., Pearson, G. S., & Pierson, C. (2012). Publication ethics: Its importance to readers, authors, and the profession. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 24, 1–2. Swaan, P. W. (2010). Publication ethics—A guide for submitting manuscripts to Pharmaceutical Research. Pharmaceutical Research, 27, 1757–1758.
www.journalforensicnursing.com
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
67
Promoting Ethical Integrity in Publishing Cindy Peternelj-Taylor, MSc, BScN, RN, DF-IAFN Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Forensic NursingW
s the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Forensic Nursing (JFN), I have had the good fortune of attending recent conferences of the International Academy of Nurse Editors, where I have learned a great deal regarding best practices in publishing. At the meeting in 2011, and again in 2012, informative interactive sessions complete with lively deliberations related to ongoing ethical issues in publishing were featured. Likewise, in recent years, numerous editorials (Froman & Jennings, 2013; Poster, Pearson, & Pierson, 2012; Swaan, 2010) and scholarly articles (Erlen, 2002; Freda & Kearney, 2005; Poff, 2009) dedicated to common ethical transgressions have been published in a variety of professional journals. And although ethical issues related to publishing likely have always existed, there is currently heightened awareness regarding the impact of such transgressions on the scientific integrity of nursing and other scholarly disciplines. My intention in writing this editorial is twofold: (1) to provide readers, potential authors, and reviewers with a brief overview of the common ethical issues associated with the publication process; and (2) to offer some practical guidance for minimizing such problems.
A
Instructions for Authors When discussing ethical issues inherent in publishing, I always like to start with the Instructions for Authors (http:// edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ifauth.htm). These were recently revised by members of the JFN Editorial Board to provide greater clarity regarding authorship responsibility, disclosure, and copyright transfer; style; and types and lengths of manuscripts that are considered for publication, as well as online submission-specific guidelines. These instructions provide authors with critical information as manuscripts that “do not comply” with these guidelines will be returned to authors for their attention and correction, thereby delaying any considerations for publication. And Author Affiliation: University of Saskatchewan. The editor has disclosed no conflict of interest. Correspondence: Cindy Peternelj-Taylor, MSc, BScN, RN, DF-IAFN, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5 Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses DOI: 10.1097/JFN.0b013e318294cff8
Journal of Forensic Nursing
although some may feel that the detailed information required as part of the submission process is merely an exercise in aggravation, these steps are necessary in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process. Therefore, to facilitate a seamless submission process—while, at the same time, keeping stress levels in check—I recommend that all potential authors (novice and expert alike) carefully examine these instructions before submitting their papers for review. Likewise, peer reviewers should also be intimately familiar with these instructions to provide relevant and informed feedback as part of the peer review process. As per our instructions for authors, “all manuscripts must be original work, not previously published (or considered for publication elsewhere), and submitted exclusively to the JFN” (http://edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ ifauth.htm). This statement is particularly significant, as it speaks to common ethical transgressions noted in editorial practice and illustrated in contemporary literature: plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), duplicate or redundant publications, and simultaneous submissions.
Plagiarism, Duplicate Publications, and Simultaneous Submissions Readers look to articles published in the JFN to inform their practice, to underpin their research, and to support their leadership in forensic nursing. They expect that publications have not only stood the scrutiny of the peer review process but, moreover, that they are original contributions to the literature. When authors intentionally or unintentionally engage in plagiarism, attempt to pass off a duplicate publication as an original, or simultaneously submit the same manuscript to several journals, the implicit trust and integrity that is expected of a scientific or scholarly publication is violated. Foster (2007) states that “avoiding plagiarism is simple: always give credit where credit is due” (p. 1). However, following such a simple edict is sometimes easier said than done, as in some cases, plagiarism results from a lack of understanding and carelessness, whereas in other cases, the intent to deceive is particularly noteworthy (King & Murphy, 2006). Whether one is citing direct quotes or paraphrasing the ideas of another, acknowledgement of the source is required. Failure to do so gives the impression that what is presented—whether it be another’s words, www.journalforensicnursing.com
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
65
Editorial ideas, or theories—originated with the author and not the original source. Plagiarism represents a serious ethical violation, one that is equated with stealing (intellectual property/ literary theft), academic dishonesty, and fraud. The impact of plagiarism on the author of the original source, the scholarly community, and the plagiarizer can be profound (Oermann & Hays, 2010). As a rule of thumb, authors should cite all ideas and information that are not their own, and/or, are not common knowledge. In such cases, it is always best to err on the side of caution, as “errors of commission are better than errors of omission” (Erlen, 2002, p. 70). An exception to this rule, however, is when the author’s information has already been published. Like plagiarism, self-plagiarism is also a concern in the publishing world. Self-plagiarism is defined as “the not so-uncommon practice of ‘re-using’ some of one’s own already published writings in a subsequently published article” (Broome, 2004, p. 273). Authors need to treat the information gleaned from their own publications as they would any other publication and cite the source accordingly (i.e., cite themselves). Similarly, related forms of self-plagiarism, such as redundant or duplicate publications, also undermine the publication process. Morse (2007) defines a duplicate publication as a “republication of an article (or a thinly disguised version of an article) in a second journal, without acknowledgement of, or without obtaining permission from, the copyright holder of the first journal” (p. 1307). To be clear, the sin of duplicate publication is not something solely restricted to journal publications but includes all resources, including print and online books, journals, Internet resources, and blogs (King, 2009). Broome (2004) concludes that it is the misrepresentation of the manuscript under the pretext of something original that is central to this discussion. In my experience, I have seen the full gamut—from a few sentences or paragraphs to whole sections of text that are recycled verbatim. Freda and Kearney (2005) found that the issue of duplicate publication or plagiarism was a topic of concern for 25% of nurse editors (n = 88) who took part in an online survey focused on publication ethics. When plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and/or duplicate publications are noted, the integrity and trustworthiness of the whole manuscript comes into question. As a result, because of the serious nature of plagiarism and the negative sequelae of such actions, many journals are systematically assessing all submissions via plagiarism-checking software (Froman & Jennings, 2013). Likewise, the JFN has at its fingertips CrossCheck, a duplication detection service provided by iThenticate, a plagiarism-prevention program. Another related ethical concern is that of simultaneous submissions, whereby the same manuscript is submitted for consideration to more than one journal. Also known as shotgunning (Oermann & Hays, 2010), authors who partake in such practices do so in hopes of increasing their 66
www.journalforensicnursing.com
likelihood of being published. Such practices are clearly dishonest; they mislead editors, deceive reviewers who may be assigned to review the submission, and violate the implied trust inherent in the publishing process (Erlen, 2002). As part of JFN’s manuscript submission process, authors are required to answer the question: “Has this manuscript been concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere?” Rather than sending simultaneous submissions, authors should consider sending query letters instead. A well-crafted query letter that clearly outlines the focus of the article can help maximize an author’s publication potential by ascertaining the editor’s interest and determining the goodness of fit. Furthermore, authors in good faith can send out as many query letters to editors as they wish, and depending on the responses they receive, this may assist them in selecting the most appropriate journals for their manuscripts.
Copyright Transfer, Conflicts of Interest, and Authorship When submitting a manuscript for review for potential publication in the JFN, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the copyright transfer form is completed and uploaded for each author at the time of submission of the article (http://edmgr.ovid.com/jfn/ accounts/copyrightTransfer.pdf). This step is fundamental; an incomplete copyright transfer will delay the whole process, as manuscripts will not be sent out for review until all authors have completed and signed the form. The authorship responsibility, disclosure, and copyright transfer form outlines the conditions of submission, including the responsibilities and rights of the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN), which owns the copyright; the author(s); and the publisher, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Because the copyright transfer form is submitted at the same time the article is submitted (i.e., before any editorial decisions), the IAFN holds the copyright during the submission and review process. If the manuscript is not accepted for publication, the copyright reverts back to the authors, who then are free to submit their manuscript to another journal of their choice (Oermann & Hays, 2010). As per the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2010) in its “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals,” authors are required to disclose information related to financial relationships, for example, “employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony” (p. 4), as such potential conflicts of interest could cast doubt on the impartiality of the author and the credibility of the manuscript under consideration. Finally, as per the instructions for authors: “All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. Each author should have contributed significantly to the Volume 9 • Number 2 • April-June 2013
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Editorial
TABLE 1. Publishing Resources The following organizations are excellent sources of information of relevance to novice and experienced authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/ Council of Science Editors: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: http:// www.icmje.org/ International Academy of Nurse Editors: http://www.nursingeditorsinane.org Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ World Association of Medical Editors: http://www.wame.org/ resources
conception and design of the work and writing the manuscript to take public responsibility for it” (http://edmgr. ovid.com/jfn/accounts/ifauth.htm). More specifically, authorship is based on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2010, p. 3). In short, authorship establishes accountability, responsibility, and credibility (Erlen, 2002). Unfortunately, abuses in authorship, such as guest authors (individuals listed as authors who do not meet the criteria for authorship) and ghost authors (individuals who may be the actual writers and meet the criteria for authorship but who are not listed as authors), are a fairly common phenomenon. Furthermore, researchers and authors are increasingly writing in collaborative teams (sometimes across multiple sites and locations), which can at times challenge the collective wisdom of the group in determining authorship. It may well be that not all team members are listed as authors on all publications, and those who contributed in other ways (e.g., recruitment, administration, technical support) should be recognized in the acknowledgements.
Final Thoughts Promoting ethical integrity in publishing requires that readers, authors, reviewers, and editors are all on the same
Journal of Forensic Nursing
page, so to speak, operating from the same frame of reference. The JFN publishes original articles, reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor. Building the science of forensic nursing requires the ethical commitment of our forensic nursing community. Discussions surrounding ethics are rarely so definitive as to preclude further discourse and debate. I hope that this editorial has challenged you to think deeply about your thoughts, beliefs, and responsibilities when it comes to the ethical dissemination of information. Additional helpful resources are found in Table 1. As always, I welcome your comments, your questions, and your concerns.
▪
References
Broom, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52(6), 273–274. Erlen, J. A. (2002). Writing for publication: Ethical considerations. Orthopaedic Nursing, 21(6), 68–71. Foster, R. L. (2007). Avoiding unintentional plagiarism. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 12(1), 1–2. Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 27(4), 487–499. Froman, R. D., & Jennings, B. M. (2013). When others wrote it first. Research in Nursing & Health, 36, 113–115. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2010). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html King, C. R. (2009). Issues and best practices related to ethical writing and publishing. Journal of the Association of Vascular Access, 14, 40–45. King, T. L., & Murphy, P. A. (2006). Editorial policies and publication ethics. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 51(2), 69–70. Morse, J. M. (2007). Duplicate publication. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1307–1308. Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. C. (2010). Writing for publication in nursing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Poff, D. (2009). Reflections on ethics in journal publications. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 51–55. Poster, E., Pearson, G. S., & Pierson, C. (2012). Publication ethics: Its importance to readers, authors, and the profession. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 24, 1–2. Swaan, P. W. (2010). Publication ethics—A guide for submitting manuscripts to Pharmaceutical Research. Pharmaceutical Research, 27, 1757–1758.
www.journalforensicnursing.com
Copyright © 2013 International Association of Forensic Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
67
