Editorial
Evidence and Ethics
Alison
Brettle
Editor-in-Chief
Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing Midwifery and
Social Work
University of Salford
Salford, United Kingdom
Email: a.brettle@salford.ac.uk
2012 Brettle.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike
License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the
resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.
Welcome
to the December issue of EBLIP, the
final issue of my first year as Editor-in-Chief. A year which I have thoroughly
enjoyed and one where the fears over what to write in my editorials haven’t materialised. This quarter, ethics has featured quite
heavily in my working life so I decided to make this the topic of the
editorial, sharing some of my thoughts regarding evidence, ethics and how
ethical principles are implemented within the EBLIP journal.
Ethics
are “principles of conduct or standards of behaviour
governing an individual or profession” (Library and Information Science
Editorial Committee, 2010), and as individuals or professionals we may be
governed by various ethical codes. As I'm sure you know, EBLIP originated in
the health domain, where ethical values and ethical research feature strongly.
Indeed, by its formal definition, research cannot take place unless “ethical
approval” from an appropriate committee has been granted. The practicalities of
taking research through the ethical approval process can often be time
consuming, and those involved in research need to bear this in mind when
planning a project. Each committee will have a slightly different form and
process (which can add to the frustration of the researcher), but basically
will make their decision to approve on the basis that the research includes
obtaining informed consent from participants (i.e., participants know what the
research is about and what their involvement will mean); that the research will
not cause harm to participants; that confidentiality will be maintained; and
that the research undertaken is methodologically
rigorous and worthwhile. Preparing a proposal for ethical approval, whilst time
consuming, makes the researcher think about all aspects of the research and how
it is going to be operationalized, which can save lots of time and effort in
the long run and may well also improve the research design. These principles
are the same whatever discipline the research takes place in, and should be
something that we are aware of as consumers of evidence.
Within
LIS in the UK, ethical principles have been put to the fore within a new
professional framework (CILIP Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals, 2012a). The framework outlines the broad range of skills
required by workers across the LIS profession, placing these on a wheel with
ethics and values in the centre, as they underpin the
profession. Placing ethics and values at the core in this way helps us set our
knowledge into a wider context and, I believe, is one of the ways that we can
make a difference as LIS professionals. At the same time, our ethical values
and principles help to differentiate us from other professions and help to
define what we do as LIS professionals. These ethical principles are outlined
in a code (CILIP Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals,
2012b), which sets out professional responsibilities in relation to users,
colleagues, and the information community and society. The elements which are
particularly relevant to EBLIP, and which are espoused in the scope and mission
of the journal, include maintaining and enhancing professional knowledge and
competence, sharing results of research and development, encouraging best practice,
and promoting equitable access to information.
There
are also ethical codes of practice for journal editors, these include one for
LIS editors (Library and Information Science Editorial Committee, 2010) and a
more general one which originated in the medical and health domain (Committee
on Publication Ethics: COPE, 2011). Both of these guide journal editors in
relating to readers, authors, reviewers, and publishers, and both seek to
establish best practice for journal publishing. For the EBLIP journal, these codes of practice provide a useful framework
for ensuring the journal operates in a professional and ethical way. A recent
example where the codes have been used in EBLIP
is in dealing with a submission from one of the editorial team (Koufogiannakis, 2012). Strong ethical principles have been
at the heart of the EBLIP journal
since its inception, but decision making is quite informal and based on the
agreement of the editorial team members who meet monthly and communicate
regularly by email. In keeping with our informal decision making structure the
editorial team discussed how to deal with the submission by an editorial team
member and decided that it should be treated in exactly the same way as any
other submission (i.e., subject to double blind peer review and would need to
adhere to the decision of the appropriate editor). To do this we also needed to
adjust the Open Journal System, so that the submitting editor did not have
access to the area where submissions and reviews are stored. In line with the
COPE code (2011), we then made this procedure explicit on our web site (http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess), as well as
documenting the decision on our internal wiki.
As
the journal grows and develops, it is important that our decision making and
principles maintain consistency and are made explicit. We also need to plan for
the future and ensure that the journal is open to as wide a range of people as
possible. To this end all our positions are advertised widely, and each
application is reviewed by at least two members of the team. Terms of office
and a policy for succession planning have also been established. The criteria
and policies are stored on a wiki, which hosts a wide range of guidelines,
procedures, and documents and is used by all members of the editorial team. As
the team grows and similar issues are faced by new members of the editorial
team, we have a reference point, policy, or guide to ensure that the decisions
made are consistent. As appropriate these can be reflected in the policies
which are stated on the journal website and are available to all our users. In
this way, we hope that the journal maintains its strong professional and
ethical ethos and continues to ensure that the best available evidence about
LIS research is made available to help practitioners in their decision making.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). Code of conduct
and best practice guidelines for journal editors. In Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE.
Retrieved 27 Nov. 2012 from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
Library and Information Science Editorial
Committee. (2010). A
statement of ethics for editors of library and information science journals.
In Library &
Information Science Editors. Retrieved 27 Nov. 2012 from http://www.lis-editors.org/bm~doc/lis-editor-statement-ethics-2010-final.pdf
Koufogiannakis, D. (2012). Academic
librarians’ conception and use of evidence. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 5-24.