Policy on Ethics

It is expected that authors submitting papers or abstracts will have conducted their work in strict accordance with the following statement on ethics approved by the Society for Neuroscience in November 1989 and amended in November 1993.

The Society for Neuroscience believes that progress in understanding the nervous system materially benefits human welfare. It recognizes that such progress depends on the honest pursuit of scientific research and the truthful representation of findings. While recognizing that both scientific error and differences of interpretation are a natural part of the creative process, the Society affirms that misconduct, in the form of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, jeopardizes the success of the entire scientific endeavor. Members of the Society assume an obligation to maintain the highest level of integrity in all scientific activities.

The primary responsibility for considering and resolving allegations of scientific misconduct lies within the individual academic communities and institutions where scientific work is carried out. The Society for Neuroscience therefore supports the principle that academic institutions should develop and have in place procedures to deal with allegations of scientific misconduct. However, the Society has a special responsibility and interest surrounding those scientific activities for which it is directly responsible, e.g., publication of The Journal of Neuroscience and the presentations at the Annual Meeting.

Every author of articles or abstracts submitted for publication in The Journal of Neuroscience or the neuroscience Abstracts agrees to assume full responsibility, within the limits of his or her professional competence, for the accuracy of the report. In the case of multiple-authored papers, each author should have made a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the scientific work; "honorary authorship," i.e., the granting of authorship to persons who have made no substantive contribution to a scientific report, is not appropriate.

Scientists must have access to their original research results. The retention of accurately recorded and retrievable results is essential for the progress of scientific inquiry. Moreover, errors may be mistaken for misconduct when primary results are unavailable. Primary data should remain in the laboratory and should be preserved as long as there may be a reasonable need to refer to them.

Authors submitting articles or abstracts do so with the understanding that reports have not been submitted elsewhere. An abstract is a proper forum for rapid communication of work that will subsequently appear as a full-length article. However, submission of abstracts reporting already published work or publication of multiple similar manuscripts or abstracts, i.e., duplicate publication, is improper. When previously published data are presented as part of a new manuscript or abstract, as in a gradually developing longitudinal data set, or if a subject group or condition is included again for comparison purposes, citations to the previously published work should appear explicitly in the new report.

Scientific publication is an important part of the process by which priority is established for experimental work and ideas. Duplicating without citation of text previously published by others or expropriating the experimental findings of others without attribution, i.e., plagiarism, is unethical. When authors of articles or abstracts have prepublication access to related work of others, as in a review process, care must be taken to avoid the appearance that priority is being claimed for work already done by others.

It is the responsibility of the authors, therefore, and not of the Society or the Editorial Board of The Journal of Neuroscience, to ensure that relevant prior discoveries are appropriately acknowledged in manuscripts that are submitted to the Journal for publication.

Questions raised about the conduct of experiments or their presentation will be evaluated preliminarily by the Editor of The Journal of Neuroscience (in the case of an article in the Journal) or by the Chair of the Program Committee (in the case of an abstract), in consultation with the Chair of the Publications Committee and the Secretary of the Society. If possible, the matter may be resolved informally at this level. However, if deemed appropriate, the matter will be referred to the institution where the scientific work in question was done. There, it would be expected that the matter would be reviewed in accordance with institutional procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. At all stages, every effort should be made to ensure that the process is fair and just, both for those who are accused of misconduct and for those who have raised the issue of scientific misconduct.

Based on their own findings or those of the institution, the Journal Editor or the Chair of the Program Committee, in consultation with the Chair of the Publications Committee and the Secretary of the Society, may recommend action to the Publications Committee. The Publications Committee will then decide on appropriate action, including, for example, retracting a published report. The Council of the Society and the relevant institution will be informed of any action that is taken. Council retains the right to consider additional action. In accordance with the Bylaws, this action could include, for example, expulsion from the Society. If it is found that allegations were not made in good faith, or were maliciously motivated, action may be recommended for those responsible.

In the event that a published article or abstract is to be retracted, a statement of retraction will be published in The Journal of Neuroscience or in the Abstracts for the next Annual Meeting.