Authors
1 Discipline of Pharmacology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2 Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract
Pharmacy practice is an ever‑changing science and profession. We are witnessing many
advancement of pharmacy technology, drug‑related information and applied clinical pharmacy
literature, which influence our every day’s life. Thus, new knowledge generated by research
and clinical experience widen the knowledge; change the understanding of drugs and their
application in therapeutics and every days life. Thus, policy makers, pharmacists, clinicians and
researchers must evaluate and use the information existing in the literature to implement
in their healthcare delivery. This paper is prepared for pharmacy researchers and pharmacy
students and analyzes the major principles of ethical conduct in general science and also
closely related topics on ghost authorship, conflict of interest, assigning co‑authorship,
redundant/repetitive and duplicate publication. Furthermore, the paper provides an insight
into fabrication and falsification of data, as the most common form of scientific fraud. Scientific
misconduct goes against everything that normal scientific method wants to reach for and
pharmacy practitioners as one the first line available health care professionals all round the
world should be enough aware of its importance and details when they want to evaluate the
medical and pharmaceutical literature and deliver unbiased and ethically published knowledge
of drugs both for the research or during consultations for patients care.
Keywords
An introduction. Pharmacotherapy 1993;13:521.
2. Miederhoff PA, Olin BR, LeFevre J. Ethics education for clinical
pharmacy practice. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1980;14:537‑9.
3. Yeager AL. On Hippocrates. Either help or do not harm the
patient. BMJ 2002;325:496.
4. Sims JM. A brief review of the Belmont report. Dimens Crit
Care Nurs 2010;29:173‑4.
5. Masic I, Hodzic A, Mulic S. Ethics in medical research and
publication. Int J Prev Med 2014;5:1073‑82.
6. Menezes RG, Giri S, Pant S, Kharoshah MA, Madadin M,
Nagaraja SB. Publication ethics. Med Leg J 2014;pii:
0025817214526524. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/24973236
7. Braile DM. Condemnation to plagiarism. Rev Bras Cir
Cardiovasc 2014;29:I‑II.
8. Bijle MN, Patil S. Plagiarism: An academic offence. J Int Oral
Health 2014;6:i.
9. Lock S. Repetitive publication: A waste that must stop. Br Med
J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;288:661‑2.
10. Sibbald B. COPE guidelines on good publication practice: An
author’s view. Health Soc Care Community 2000;8:355‑61.
11. Netland PA. Ethical authorship and the Ingelfinger rule in the
digital age. Ophthalmology 2013;120:1111‑2.
12. Culebras JM, García de Lorenzo A, Sanz‑Valero J; Grupo
CDC‑Nut SENPE. Reflections concerning the ethical conflicts
of the scientific literature: The repetitive, duplicated or
redundant publication. Nutr Hosp 2009;24:375‑7.
13. Patz EF Jr. Conflict of interest disclosures. JAMA Intern Med
2014;174:823.
14. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Burda BU, Ogden LA, Fu R. Conflict
of interest policies for organizations producing a large number
of clinical practice guidelines. PLoS One 2012;7:e37413.
15. Kemelmajer De Carlucci A. Conflict of interest and bioethics.
J Int Bioethique 2014;25:51‑77, 171.
16. Resnik DB. Data fabrication and falsification and empiricist
philosophy of science. Sci Eng Ethics 2014;20:423‑31.
17. Daniel TM. Authorship: The International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors offers guidelines. J Lab Clin Med
1988;112:137.
18. Lissoni F, Montobbio F. Guest authors or ghost inventors?
Inventorship and authorship attribution in academic science.
Eval Rev 2014.
19. Hargreaves S. Ghost authorship of industry funded drug trials
is common, say researchers. BMJ 2007;334:223.
20. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT,
Altman DG, ChanAW. Ghost authorship in industry‑initiated
randomised trials. PLoS Med 2007;4:e19.
21. Rakhshan V. On the authorship criteria. Dent Res J (Isfahan)
2014;11:288.
22. Greenblatt DJ, Shader RI. Conflicts of interest, redundant
publication, and identification of authorship: A plea
for trust instead of suspicion. J Clin Psychopharmacol
1998;18:183‑4.
23. Camargo KR Jr, Coeli CM. Multiple authorship: Growth or
inflationary bubble? Rev Saude Publica 2012;46:894‑900.
24. Basso L. Academic titles and authorship. Dis Colon Rectum
1999;42:1106‑7.
25. Özcan M. Publish or perish, publish and perish. JAdhes Dent
2014;16:103.
26. Baethge C. Publish together or perish: The increasing number
of authors per article in academic journals is the consequence
of a changing scientific culture. Some researchers define
authorship quite loosely. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008;105:380‑3.
)