2.1 Plagiarism

Do you really know what constitutes plagiarism? In the ethics lexicon, plagiarism is a form of stealing in the sense of taking credit for someone else's ideas or seeking some sort of benefit from copying previously published work. Most people have been warned and understand that directly copying and taking credit for someone else's writing, data, and results are unethical and constitute research misconduct.

While nearly all educated individuals have been taught that plagiarism is wrong, problems of plagiarism are increasing in scientific publishing. The following are three forms of plagiarism that some authors seem to be unaware of: (a) verbatim copying of text in a manuscript with the reference cited in parentheses, (b) self‐plagiarism, and (c) translation plagiarism.

Writing is the process of putting one's thoughts into words. Thus, copying verbatim what someone else has written is a form of stealing another person's thoughts and ideas, an infraction addressed in copyright agreements that prohibit copying published text without expressed permission. Simply adding a reference to text that has been copied verbatim is entirely unacceptable. Text that has been copied verbatim must be placed in parentheses, along with the reference cited. Clearly, an introduction, review of the literature, or discussion section that is full of parentheses is not a well‐written piece. While some refer to this trend as laziness in scholarship, it is nonetheless a form of plagiarism, which constitutes research misconduct.

Some authors attempt to argue that self‐plagiarism is not plagiarism in that the writing is “theirs,” and they are not stealing the ideas of another. Such comments ignore the fact that those authors signed a copyright agreement with the publisher of the original article in which the publishing rights belong to the publisher, not the author. To reuse text, tables, or figures that were previously published requires explicit permission from the publisher, often accompanied by a fee. It is astonishing that authors who self‐plagiarize have never thought about the significance of the tabs that say “Request permissions” that are located prominently in the online listings of the original published articles. Do self‐plagiarizing authors simply not read the copyright agreements that they sign to have their articles published, or do they blatantly ignore the agreements signed? As a matter of record, some of the lowest (meaning least similar) scores from the plagiarism‐checking tool used by the JWAS are those that originate from some of the most prolific authors whose laboratories have conducted similar analyses for decades. These authors commendably write each article as a new piece of research and do not conveniently cut and paste text from previously articles.

Translation plagiarism is of increasing concern. The Committee on Publication Ethics considers translation plagiarism a form of research misconduct, defining it as “disguised plagiarism” that occurs when “someone …republishes the work of someone else, but in a different language” (COPE, 2020). A 2020 article in Science Magazine (Chawla, 2020) summarized a report by a commission of the Russian Academy of Science that investigated translation plagiarism and text recycling that led to duplicate publication. The report has been characterized as a “bombshell,” resulting in more than 800 scientific articles retracted.

2.2 Duplicate publication

There are two types of duplicate publication. The first type occurs when an author publishes text, tables, and figures verbatim from a published work (particularly one for which the author has signed a copyright agreement) without permission from the publisher of the original publication. All authors that have an article accepted must sign a copyright agreement before the article is published. It should be obvious that a signed “agreement” is a legally binding document that behooves educated persons such as research scientists to read before signing. A person of high moral character would also then seek to abide by the terms of the agreement that has been signed.

The second type of duplicate publication violation occurs when an author simultaneously submits the same manuscript to two different journals. Most journals require authors to formally attest that the manuscript has not been submitted to another journal. Checking that box and then submitting the same manuscript to another journal is an act of dishonesty. Dishonesty, or lying, is one of the three major components of immoral behavior, as in “lying, cheating, and stealing.”

Both types of duplicate publication actions are unethical. Why take the risk of either form of duplicate publication? Scientists are expected to act in accord with fundamental tenets of honesty in their science and its publication. While, undoubtedly, some individuals who engage in unethical behaviors have not been caught, many examples exist of those authors who have been caught. Their names rarely appear in the public news media, but the aftermath leads to long‐term consequences that adversely affect the authors involved. Other scientists often refuse to continue collaborations with such individuals; editors take note of such activities; and word spreads quickly, especially in smaller academic fields such as aquaculture.

2.3 Guest authorship, ghost authorship, “brokered authorship”

Collaborative teams of interdisciplinary researchers are essential for the future growth and development of aquaculture (Engle, 2016). Inclusion as an author on a scientific article means that each individual has made a “substantive intellectual contribution” to the work presented in the publication. Substantive contributions include the conception and design of the overall study, as well as the ultimate content, presentation, and completion of the manuscript. All individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the content and preparation should be included as authors.

Individuals who have not made a substantive contribution to the work reported, however, should not be included as authors. Thus, it is unethical to: (a) include names of authors who have not made substantive contributions to the work (guest or gift authors) or (b) omit the name of an author (ghost author) who did make a substantive contribution to the work reported.

The race to publish the greatest numbers of articles possible (to receive positive annual evaluations, for promotions, for nominations to receive awards and recognitions) has promoted guest and gift authorship. Adding the name of one's supervisor, when that individual did not make a substantive contribution to the work reported, is to engage in guest/gift authorship. Doing so intentionally to put a researcher in good stead when it comes time for raises and promotions is an unethical practice. Informal groups of colleagues who put each other's names on articles in a quid pro quo‐type of relationship (when those individuals did not make a substantive intellectual contribution to the study reported) also constitute an intentional strategy founded on guest/gift authorship. Such publishing cabals or “brokered authorship” groups (COPE, 2018, 2020) are becoming more common. The Committee on Publication Ethics considers these groups to be dishonest, fraudulent, and engaging in a relatively new form of misconduct (COPE, 2018).

2.4 Not getting permission from all authors

It can be frustrating, particularly for students and young scientists, to wait to receive feedback from all authors on a manuscript, make revisions, and have to wait for final approval of all authors prior to submission to a journal. Nonetheless, most journals require some statement whereby the corresponding author attests that all authors have approved submission of the manuscript. When a corresponding author fails to heed this requirement, that individual is misrepresenting the desires of those coauthors who have yet to give their permission. Such misrepresentation is unethical and generally leads to a variety of problems for the corresponding author. Coauthors, typically collaborators, who find out that an article was submitted without their knowledge and approval often seek reprisal by insisting that the article be withdrawn or even rejected out of hand prior to review. Exercising patience will avoid the risk of alienating important collaborators.

2.5 Lying by omission

One of the core tenets of the scientific process is that the work reported is repeatable. Thus, it is incumbent upon the author of a scientific article to accurately and completely describe the materials and methods used in the study. Rush to publish or perhaps simple lazy oversight in manuscript preparation may explain a number of instances of incomplete methods reported in scientific articles. However, when the omission of important details is deliberate, to perhaps obscure deficiencies or errors in experimental design, data collection, or laboratory analyses, then this misconduct is dishonest and unethical.

Lying by omission includes not citing relevant literature. In some cases, an irresponsible researcher may not have devoted sufficient time to the all‐important detailed literature search phase of the research project and is unaware of relevant literature. In other cases, however, citation of relevant work is omitted deliberately to avoid revealing to reviewers that the work presented has already been the subject of thorough investigation, and the study they are seeking to publish would be a nominal contribution to the overall literature. Perhaps more egregious is the deliberate omission of references to studies that contradict results of the study being reported. Such omissions are dishonest, unethical, and a form of research misconduct.

Citing irrelevant literature or citing references that do not contain the information that the reference purportedly documents is yet another form of lying by omission. One example is to cite an article (often by a well‐known author) that does not contain the content being referenced. Another example is to use a citation to imply proven results when the statement referenced was not a result of the study but an introductory or speculative statement in the article referenced.