Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical
Research
American Chemical Society
The guidelines embodied in this document were revised by
the Editors of the Publications Division of the American
Chemical Society in January 2000.
Preface
The American Chemical Society serves the chemistry
profession and society at large in many ways, among them by
publishing journals which present the results of scientific
and engineering research. Every editor of a Society journal
has the responsibility to establish and maintain guidelines
for selecting and accepting papers submitted to that journal.
In the main, these guidelines derive from the
Societyís definition of the scope of the journal and
from the editorís perception of standards of quality
for scientific work and its presentation. An essential
feature of a profession is the acceptance by its members of a
code that outlines desirable behavior and specifies
obligations of members to each other and to the public. Such
a code derives from a desire to maximize perceived benefits
to society and to the profession as a whole and to limit
actions that might serve the narrow self-interests of
individuals. The advancement of science requires the sharing
of knowledge between individuals, even though doing so may
sometimes entail foregoing some immediate personal
advantage.
With these thoughts in mind, the editors of journals
published by the American Chemical Society now present a set
of ethical guidelines for persons engaged in the publication
of chemical research, specifically, for editors, authors, and
manuscript reviewers. These guidelines are offered not in the
sense that there is any immediate crisis in ethical behavior,
but rather from a conviction that the observance of high
ethical standards is so vital to the whole scientific
enterprise that a definition of those standards should be
brought to the attention of all concerned. We believe that
most of the guidelines now offered are already understood and
subscribed to by the majority of experienced research
chemists. They may, however, be of substantial help to those
who are relatively new to research. Even well-established
scientists may appreciate an opportunity to review matters so
significant to the practice of science. and prudent exercise
of this duty normally requires that the editor seek advice
from reviewers, chosen for their expertise and good judgment,
as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted
for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without
review if considered inappropriate for the journal.
Back to top
Ethical Obligations of Editors
of Scientific Journals
- An editor should give unbiased consideration to all
manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its
merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex,
seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
An editor may, however, take into account relationships of
a manuscript immediately under consideration to others
previously or concurrently offered by the same
author(s).
- An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for
publication with all reasonable speed.
- The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of
a manuscript rests with the editor. Responsible and prudent
exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor
seek advice from reviewers, chosen for their expertise and
good judgment, as to the quality and reliability of
manuscripts submitted for publication. However, manuscripts
may be rejected without review if considered inappropriate
for the journal.
- The editor and members of the editorís staff
should not disclose any information about a manuscript
under consideration to anyone other than those from whom
professional advice is sought. (However, an editor who
solicits, or otherwise arranges beforehand, the submission
of manuscripts may need to disclose to a prospective author
the fact that a relevant manuscript by another author has
been received or is in preparation.) After a decision has
been made about a manuscript, the editor and members of the
editorís staff may disclose or publish manuscript
titles and authorsí names of papers that have been
accepted for publication, but no more than that unless the
authorís permission has been obtained.
- An editor should respect the intellectual independence
of authors.
- Editorial responsibility and authority for any
manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the
editorís journal should be delegated to some other
qualified person, such as another editor of that journal or
a member of its Editorial Advisory Board. Editorial
consideration of the manuscript in any way or form by the
author-editor would constitute a conflict of interest, and
is therefore improper.
- Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations
disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in
an editorís own research except with the consent of
the author. However, if such information indicates that
some of the editorís own research is unlikely to be
profitable, the editor could ethically discontinue the
work. When a manuscript is so closely related to the
current or past research of an editor as to create a
conflict of interest, the editor should arrange for some
other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for
that manuscript. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
tell an author about the editorís research and plans
in that area.
- If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that
the main substance or conclusions of a report published in
an editorís journal are erroneous, the editor should
facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing
out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report
may be written by the person who discovered the error or by
an original author.
- An author may request that the editor not use certain
reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the
editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if
the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair
consideration of a manu-script. This might be the case, for
example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the
previous work of a potential reviewer.
Back to top
Ethical Obligations of
Authors
- An authorís central obligation is to present an
accurate account of the research performed as well as an
objective discussion of its significance.
- An author should recognize that journal space is a
precious resource created at considerable cost. An author
therefore has an obligation to use it wisely and
economically.
- A primary research report should contain sufficient
detail and reference to public sources of information to
permit the authorís peers to repeat the work. When
requested, the authors should make a reasonable effort to
provide samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere,
such as clones, microorganism strains, antibodies, etc., to
other researchers, with appropriate material transfer
agreements to restrict the field of use of the materials so
as to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
- An author should cite those publications that have been
influential in determining the nature of the reported work
and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work
that is essential for understanding the present
investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that
will not be referred to in the reported research should be
minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature
search to find, and then cite, the original publications
that describe closely related work. For critical materials
used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be
made when these were supplied by a nonauthor.
- Any unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals,
equipment, or procedures used in an investigation should be
clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.
- Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A
scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group
of related systems should organize publication so that each
report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect
of the general study. Fragmentation consumes journal space
excessively and unduly complicates literature searches. The
convenience of readers is served if reports on related
studies are published in the same journal, or in a small
number of journals.
- In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author
should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the
author has under editorial consideration or in press.
Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the
editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the
one submitted should be indicated.
- It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts
describing essentially the same research to more than one
journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission
of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.
It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a
full paper expanding on a previously published brief
preliminary account (a communication or letter) of the same
work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should
be made aware of the earlier communication, and the
preliminary communication should be cited in the
manuscript.
- An author should identify the source of all information
quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge.
Information obtained privately, as in conversation,
correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should
not be used or reported in the authorís work without
explicit permission from the investigator with whom the
information originated. Information obtained in the course
of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or
grant applications, should be treated similarly.
- An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes
justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of
another scientist. When appropriate, such criticism may be
offered in published papers. However, in no case is
personal criticism considered to be appropriate.
- The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons
who have made significant scientific contributions to the
work reported and who share responsibility and
accountability for the results. Other contributions should
be indicated in a footnote or an Acknowledgments section.
An administrative relationship to the investigation does
not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but
occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major
administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the
criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so
included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No
fictitious name should be listed as an author or co-author.
The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts
the responsibility of having included as co-authors all
persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting
author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy
of the manuscript and have obtained the co-authorís
assent to co-authorship of it.
- The authors should reveal to the editor any potential
conflict of interest, e.g., a consulting or financial
interest in a company, that might be affected by
publication of the results contained in a manuscript. The
authors should ensure that no contractual relations or
proprietary considerations exist that would affect the
publication of information in a submitted manuscript.
Back to top
Ethical Obligations of Reviewers
of Manuscripts
- Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an
essential step in the publication process, and therefore in
the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has
an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
- A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to
judge the research reported in a manuscript should return
it promptly to the editor.
- A reviewer (or referee) of a manuscript should judge
objectively the quality of the manuscript, of it
experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations
and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of
high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should
respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a
conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is
closely related to the reviewerís work in progress
or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the
manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of
the conflict of interest or bias. Alternatively, the
reviewer may wish to furnish a signed review stating the
reviewerís interest in the work, with the
understanding that it may, at the editorís
discretion, be transmitted to the author.
- A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or
co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a
personal or professional connection if the relationship
would bias judgment of the manuscript.
- A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as
a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor
discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons
from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the
identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the
editor.
- Reviewers should explain and support their judgments
adequately so that editors and authors may understand the
basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation,
derivation, or argument had been previously reported should
be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported
assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of
little value and should be avoided.
- A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to
cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind
that complaints that the reviewerís own research was
insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer
should call to the editorís attention any
substantial similarity between the manuscript under
consideration and any published paper or any manuscript
submitted concurrently to another journal.
- A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in
a timely manner. Should a reviewer receive a manuscript at
a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it,
the unreviewed manuscript should be returned immediately to
the editor. Alternatively, the reviewer might notify the
editor of probable delays and propose a revised review
date.
- Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished
information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a
manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of
the author. If this information indicates that some of the
reviewerís work is unlikely to be profitable, the
reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work. In
some cases, it may be appropriate for the reviewer to write
the author, with copy to the editor, about the
reviewerís research and plans in that area.
- The review of a submitted manuscript may sometimes
justify criticism, even severe criticism, from a reviewer.
When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in
published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism
of the author considered to be appropriate.
Back to top
Ethical Obligations of Scientists
Publishing Outside the Scientific Literature
- A scientist publishing in the popular literature has
the same basic obligation to be accurate in reporting
observations and unbiased in interpreting them as when
publishing in a scientific journal.
- Inasmuch as laymen may not understand scientific
terminology, the scientist may find it necessary to use
common words of lesser precision to increase public
comprehension. In view of the importance of
scientistsí communicating with the general public,
some loss of accuracy in that sense can be condoned. The
scientist should, however, strive to keep public writing,
remarks, and interviews as accurate as possible consistent
with effective communication.
- A scientist should not proclaim a discovery to the
public unless the experimental, statistical, or theoretical
support for it is of strength sufficient to warrant
publication in the scientific literature. An account of the
experimental work and results that support a public
pronouncement should be submitted as quickly as possible
for publication in a scientific journal. Scientists should,
however, be aware that disclosure of research results in
the public press or in an electronic database or bulletin
board might be considered by a journal editor as equivalent
to a preliminary communication in the scientific
literature.