Honesty in Publication

A recent editorial in Water Research (39, 1–2), “The Ignoble Art of Cheating in Scientific Publications,” caught my attention because it addressed a number of issues related to publication misconduct, a topic that I have had to address more than once in the past few years. With acknowledgment to Mogens Henze, the editor-in chief of Water Research (WR), I would like to mention several of the points listed in the editorial, as they are important for all authors.

To begin, it is important to remember why we publish. If you come from an academic background, then the answer might be to get tenure or to make full professor. If you work in the private sector, perhaps your firm offers a cash incentive. These, however, should not be the major motivating forces. We should submit papers when we: (1) think that we have done something that represents a contribution to a field (e.g., a new principle or design procedure, or a novel application of an existing principle); (2) have obtained data that has not previously been measured and can be applied to a problem; or (3) have completed a case study in which data from a field-scale system are integrated so to provide a complete picture of an engineered or natural system. There are many other good reasons to submit manuscripts, but the underlying principle is that we think that we have something new that can stand up to the rigor of anonymous review by our peers. Publications in archival journals such as the Journal of Environmental Engineering become part of a permanent record that may be referenced for decades to come.

The reputation of a journal is based on the quality of the work published, which in turn leads to a higher impact factor, a measure of the extent to which articles in the journal are cited in subsequent journal articles. As authors want to publish in journals with high-impact factors, and journal editors and publishers like high-impact factors, the goal of the author and editor should be aligned.

With this as a background, the Waster Research editorial listed a number of areas where publication misconduct has been observed. All of these will first, reflect poorly on the author, and second, reflect poorly on the journal if a problematic article is published. Problems cited include:

Here are two more issues that were not cited in the WR editorial.

It is unfortunate that I have elected to use space in the Journal for such a negative topic. Unfortunately, I do not think it a coincidence that another leading journal in our field elected to publish an editorial on the same topic, nor is it a coincidence that this topic had come up in other discussions in which I have participated. Of course, if you have a question about how to handle a sticky issue, consult with an experienced colleague or the editor.