Skip to main content
Download PDF

The Ethics of Publication in Public Health

Public Health Reviews volume 34, Article number: 12 (2012) Cite this article

Abstract

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a key part of advancement in science and a vital part of development of the scientific basis for public health practice. The process of publication should promote rigorous standards of high quality ethical research and the wide dissemination of their findings. When considering the issues arising from publication in public health, relevant frameworks include those from the field of publication ethics, public health practice and epidemiological research.

The consequences of poor, or frankly fraudulent science, can have a substantial adverse impact both on health, and on the use of resources, and public credibility because of the population based nature of public health interventions. Professional and scientific journals therefore have a critical role in promoting and preserving the highest possible ethical and professional standards to advance the field of public health practice.

I present here a personal view of some of these ethical issues, predominantly from the perspective of an experienced editor, but also to some extent that of reviewers and of course, the authors.

References

  1. Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictoriaries. Available from URL: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ethics (Accessed 18 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rees M. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors 2011. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available from URL: http://publicationethics.org/ (Accessed 20 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Available from URL: http://www.wame.org/ (Accessed 5 October 2012).

  4. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Conflict of interest in peer reviewed journals. Available from URL: http://www.wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals (Accessed 5 October 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  5. ten Have M, Beaufort ID, Mackenbach JP, van der Heide A. An overview of ethical frameworks in public health: can they be supportive in the evaluation of programs to prevent overweight? BMC Public Health. 2010;10:638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kass NE. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001; 911:776–82.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn J, Bonnie RJ, et al. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30:170–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Public Health Leadership Society: Principles of the ethical practice of public health. 2.2 edition. 2002. p.11. Available from URL: http://www.phls.org/ home/section/3–26/ (Accessed 9 November 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Public Health Ethics Network. Public policies law and bioethics: a framework for producing public health policy across the European Union. EuroPHEN; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tannahill A. Beyond evidence-to ethics: a decision-making framework for health promotion, public health and health improvement. Health Promot Int. 2008;23:380–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Coughlin SS. Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2006;3:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Medical Research Council London. Ethics and research guidance. MRC. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/index.htm (Accessed 21 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Institutes of Health. Ethical Guidelines & Regulations. NIH. Available from URL: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/ethical_guidelines.htm (Accessed 20 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Thomson Reuters. The Thomas Reuters impact factor. Available from URL: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ (Accessed 19 August 2012).

  16. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horton A. A statement by the editors of The Lancet. Lancet. 2004;363:820–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. The editors of the Lancet. Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 2010;375:445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. Editorial. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deer B. Secrets of the MMR scare. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011;342:c5347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. General Medical Council. Dr Andrew Jeremy WAKEFIELD Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction. London: General Medical Council; 24 May 2010. Available from URL:http://www.gmc-uk.org/ Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf (Accessed 21 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pilkington PA, Gray S, Gilmore AB. Health impacts of exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) amongst a highly exposed workforce: survey of London casino workers. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:257

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Steckler A, McLeroy KR. The importance of external validity. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:9–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials. Statement. Available from URL: http://www.consort-statement.org/home/ (Accessed 6 October 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  25. PRISMA Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Statement. Available from URL: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (Accessed 6 October 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dickersin K, Chalmers I. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. 2010. Available from URL: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/illustrating/articles/recognising-investigating-and-dealing-with- incomplete-and-biase (Accessed 21 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. American Academy Of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Controversies concerning vitamin K and the newborn. Pediatrics. 2003;112:191–2.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith R. Commentary. Screening for future cardiovascular disease using age alone: reflections on a paper peer-reviewed as both “radical” and “unsurprising”. J Med Screening. 2011;18:113–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wald NJ, Simmonds M, Morris JK. Screening for future cardiovascular disease using age alone compared to multiple risk factors and age. PLoS One. 2011;6:e18742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Global Forum for Health Research. Available from URL: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/ (Accessed 20 Aug 2012).

  31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Spina bifida and anencephaly before and after folic acid mandate—United States, 1995–1996 and 1999 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:362–5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen D. The truth about sports drinks. BMJ. 2012;345:e4737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen D, Carter P. WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies. BMJ. 2010; 340:c2912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chan M. WHO response to article on conflicts of interest. BMJ 2010;340:c2912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Evans MR.The swine flu scam? J Public Health. 2010;32:296–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, Del Mar CB, Heneghan CJ, et al. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1:CD008965.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease Circulation. 2007;116:1845–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith R. Reed-Elsevier’s hypocrisy in selling arms and health. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:114–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Stafford T. Lessons from the Campaign against Elsevier. “We won, but how did we win?” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 2009;8:494–504.

    Google Scholar 

  40. The cost of knowledge. Available from URL: http://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf (Accessed 20 August 2012).

  41. Smith R. The Trouble with Medical Journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Northridge ME, McLeroy KR, Haviland ML, Johnson NJ, Benjamin GC. Editorial independence at the journal. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:377–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Northridge ME, McLeroy KR, Haviland ML. Essential tensions in the journal. Am J Public Health 2004;94:11–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. No Authors. Demystifying peer review. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:413.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 42:1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Simons-Morton B, Abraido-Lanza AF, Bernhardt JM, Schoenthaler A, Schnitzer A, Allegrante JP. Demystifying peer review. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39:3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Plagiarism. Available from URL: http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/plagiarism (Accessed 20 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Godlee F. Helping institutions tackle research misconduct. Editorial. BMJ. 2012;345:e5402.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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). 5 March 2012. Available from URL: www.publicationethics.org (Accessed 21 August 2012).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of West of England, Glenside Campus, Blackberry Hill, Bristol, BS16 1DD, UK

    Selena Gray BSc, MBCHB, MD, FFPH, FRCP

  2. Severn Deanery, Bristol, UK

    Selena Gray BSc, MBCHB, MD, FFPH, FRCP

Authors
  1. Selena Gray BSc, MBCHB, MD, FFPH, FRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selena Gray BSc, MBCHB, MD, FFPH, FRCP.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gray, S. The Ethics of Publication in Public Health. Public Health Rev 34, 12 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391664

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391664

Key Words

Public Health Reviews

ISSN: 2107-6952

Contact us