Request for Comment: Publication Ethics for Peaceful Science

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Here is some specific feedback for the committee to consider from me.

1. The policy needs to include a provision about making the policy publicly known, with a process for reporting errors. Such as:

Websites adopting this policy should prominently note this on their website, including a link to the policy and information on how to report errors to the website’s editors. Any deviations from the recommended policy of this document should be clearly noted, ideally with an explanation of why the deviation is needed.

2. I suggest adding a provision for modifying the policy. This will keep people from vetoing because of a minor misfit, and also give us a path to improve the policy over time. Consider text such as:

We recognize that this is a complex and rapidly changing space, with several publishing niches. It is possible that some provisions of this policy are not suitable in some contexts. Any deviations from this policy should be clearly noted. We encourage adaptations of this policy to be made, and to be communicated back to us, so that revisions of this document can be considered.

3. Once the first version of this policy is finalized, I suggest maintaining it on github (see: Open collaborative writing with Manubot and Referencing and citing content - GitHub Docs). With this approach, updates to the policy can be publicly logged, issues with the policy can be reported by anyone, and adoption of changes debated and finalized transparently. By including it in github, we can also obtain DOI’s for each version of the policy.

4. I suggest specifying a copyright license. I suggest selecting the appropriate Creative Commons license (see: About CC Licenses - Creative Commons) and noting at the end of the policy as required by their guidelines.

5. This point about what is “not an error” needs some clarification.

@sfmatheson

What is not an error

In the context of ongoing scholarship (science, specifically), articles regularly become “wrong” when new discoveries happen. This is why science is often correctly described as “self-correcting,” and the scientific literature has no other mechanism for correction of this kind of wrongness. The policies in this proposal do not address this kind of ongoing scientific self-correction, but future proposals will.

This is to open to abuse and needs some guidelines, even if a full blown policy is not developed now. Perhaps include some text such as:

There may be debate about what is an error that requires correction. In general, we should err towards clarifying points that will confusing to readers, especially non-scientist readers. Though we do not include a full policy on this here, good faith application of this principle would include adding dated notes to articles that clarify for readers how understanding has advanced.

6. Some policy on disputes should be included, such as:

There may be disputes or significant ambiguity about whether or not a specific issue in an article is an error, or if the error requires a retraction or not. Editors are expected to use their judgement in making a determination, but also to be transparent about these disputes. This should include noting any unresolved disputes in a note in the article, or possibly in comments on the article, and noting the name of the editor that made the determination.

7. There seems to be more information necessary in correction or retraction notices:

@sfmatheson

A corrigendum is a separate article (or an addendum to the original article) that identifies the error, its source (either the author or, in rare cases, the editor), and the steps taken to correct the error.

@sfmatheson

A retraction notice is attached to the original article and specifies the reasons why the article is being retracted and the parties who have agreed to its retraction.

The correction/retraction notices should also include 1) the name of the person who reported the error (unless they elect to be anonymous), 2) the date the error was reported.

8. How does this policy apply retroactively? I suggest adding a provision such as:

This policy applies retroactively to all articles published, with the caveat that articles will be brought into compliance as issues are noted to the editorial staff.

9. Language idiosyncratic to us, e.g. reference to peacefulscience.org, should be removed.