TOWARD A PUBLICATION ETHICS STANDARDS SYSTEM FOR VIETNAMESE SCHOLARLY JOURNALS: A STAKEHOLDER–ARTIFACT INTERACTION FRAMEWORK, MODULAR TAXONOMY, AND VALIDATION PROTOCOL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n1.3988Palabras clave:
Publication Ethics, Journal Policy, Research Integrity, Scientometrics, Publishing Studies, AI GovernanceResumen
Publication ethics has become a practical infrastructure requirement for journals rather than a purely normative aspiration. Yet many scholarly journal ecosystems—particularly those dominated by university- and institute-based titles with lean editorial staffing—face an implementation gap: international guidance is widely available, while locally operational policy architectures are uneven and difficult to maintain under rapid digitalization and AI- assisted writing and reviewing. This paper proposes VPESS (Vietnam Publication Ethics Standards System), a modular standards blueprint designed for Vietnamese scholarly journals but transferable to similar contexts. The study adopts a design-science orientation and develops VPESS through: (i) a stakeholder–artifact interaction model that locates ethical risks at concrete workflow events, (ii) a normative synthesis of internationally used ethics benchmarks and publisher policies, and (iii) an operational “element engineering” step that translates principles into auditable requirements linked to evidence artifacts and escalation pathways. VPESS v1.0 comprises three modules (Authors, Editors, Reviewers), 27 themes, and 81 implementable elements, each tagged as core or advanced to support capacity-sensitive adoption. Beyond the taxonomy, we contribute an evaluation layer— two lightweight indices for policy coverage and workflow readiness—and a Delphi-based validation protocol for consensus calibration and iterative updating. The framework is positioned as a versioned community resource that can remain extensible as norms evolve (e.g., around AI tools and bilingual/translation publication practices), while improving interoperability with global publishing expectations.
Citas
Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y., Gross, C.P., 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA 289, 454–465. URL: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.4.454, doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2025a. Cope code of conduct for members. URL: https://publicationethics.org/membership/code-of-conduct. announced 2025 as replacement for Core Practices; accessed 2025-12-14.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2025b. History of the cope code of con- duct and core practices. URL: https://publicationethics.org/about/what-we-do/ our-story/history-code-conduct. accessed 2025-12-14.
Cukier, S., Lalu, M., Bryson, G.L., Cobey, K.D., et al., 2020. Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open 10, e035561. URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561.
Fanelli, D., 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE 4, e5738. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0005738, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., Casadevall, A., 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 17028–17033. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109, doi:10.1073/ pnas.1212247109.
Flanagin, A., Carey, L.A., Fontanarosa, P.B., Phillips, S.G., Pace, B.P., Lundberg, G.D., Rennie, D., 1998. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280, 222–224. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1001/jama.280.3.222, doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.222.
Flanagin, A., Kendall-Taylor, J., Bibbins-Domingo, K., 2023. Guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors on use of AI, language models, and chatbots. JAMA 330, 702–703. URL: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12500, doi:10.1001/jama.2023.12500.
Haak, L.L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., Ratner, H., 2012. ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing 25, 259–264. URL: https://doi. org/10.1087/20120404, doi:10.1087/20120404.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004a. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625, doi:10.2307/25148625.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004b. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105. doi:10.2307/25148625.
Humphrey-Murto, S., Wood, T.J., Gonsalves, C., Mascioli, K., Varpio, L., 2020. The Delphi method. Academic Medicine 95, 168. URL: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM. 0000000000002887, doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002887.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2025. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. URL: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. updated April 2025; accessed 2025-12-14.
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.C., Hedlund, T., 2011. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLOS ONE 6, e20961. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961, doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0020961.
Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., Cronin, B., 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 2–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784, doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
Manh, H.D., 2015. Scientific publications in Vietnam as seen from Scopus database during 1996–2013. Scientometrics 105, 83–95. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-015-1655-x, doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1655-x.
Munafò, M.R., Nosek, B.A., Bishop, D.V.M., Button, K.S., Chambers, C.D., et al., 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 0021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021, doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
Nosek, B.A., Alter, G., Banks, G.C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S.D., et al., 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348, 1422–1425. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aab2374, doi:10.1126/science.aab2374.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S., 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Infor- mation Systems 24, 45–77. URL: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302, doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
Pham-Duc, B.D., Tran, T., Trinh, T., Nguyen, T.T., 2022. A spike in the scientific output on social sciences in Vietnam for recent three years: Evidence from bibliometric analysis in Scopus database (2000–2019). Journal of Information Science 48, 3–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520977447, doi:10.1177/0165551520977447.
Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J., 2013. Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1, e175. URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175, doi:10.7717/peerj.175.
Ross-Hellauer, T., 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 6, 588. URL: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2, doi:10.12688/ f1000research.11369.2.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., et al., 2017. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine 15, 28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9, doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.
Shen, C., Björk, B.C., 2015. “predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13, 230. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2, doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
Smith, R., 2006. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99, 178–182. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1177/014107680609900414, doi:10.1177/014107680609900414.
Tennant, J.P., Dugan, J.M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D.C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., et al., 2017. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research 6, 1151. URL: https://doi.org/10.12688/ f1000research.12037.3, doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.
Tran, T., Nguyen, L.T.M., Nghiem, T.T., Le, H.T.T., Nguyen, C.H., La, T.P., Nguyen, T.T., Nguyen, H.T.T., 2019. Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus. Science Editing 6, 142–147. URL: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175, doi:10.6087/kcse.
175.
Vuong, Q.H., 2020. The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing 33, 119–130. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282, doi:10.1002/leap.1282.
Vuong, Q.H., La, V.P., et al., 2018. An open database of productivity in Vietnam’s social sciences and humanities for public use. Scientific Data 5, 180188. URL: https:
//doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.188, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.188.
Wager, E., 2012. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Objectives and achieve- ments 1997–2012. La Presse Médicale 41, 861–866. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.lpm.2012.02.049, doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2012.02.049.
Xie, S., Chu, J., Wang, Z., Wang, T., Liu, Z., Li, X., Jiang, M., 2024. Construction of a publication ethics standards system for scientific journals in China. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals 35, 1705–1714. URL: https://doi.org/10.11946/ cjstp.202406050611, doi:10.11946/cjstp.202406050611. in Chinese.
Xu, S.B., Evans, N., Hu, G., Bouter, L., 2023. What do retraction notices reveal about institutional investigations into allegations underlying retractions? Science and Engineering Ethics 29, 1–24. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4, doi:10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
