Misconduct by researchers and authors

Marcovitch, Harvey

doi:10.1157/13112245

Gaceta Sanitaria

ISSN: 0213-9111

Gaceta Sanitaria es la revista científica y órgano de expresión de la Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria (SESPAS).
Gaceta Sanitaria acepta para su publicación artículos en español e inglés. Es una revista Open Access (OA); todos sus artículos son accesibles libremente sin cargo para el usuario y se distribuyen con la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional

Call for papers: Special Issue on Health Economics

Convocatoria abierta y permanente para incorporar Editores/as asociados/as al Comité Editorial de Gaceta Sanitaria

Call for papers: Special Issue on Health Economics

Open and permanent call to incorporate Associate Editors to the Editorial Committee of Gaceta Sanitaria

Indexada en:

Web of Science (Science Citation Index, SCI, y Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI), Medline/PubMed, Index Medicus, Scopus, Scielo, IBECS, Índice Médico Español, Toxline, Cancerlit, Aidsline, Cab Health, Bibliomed, Cuiden, Eventline y Healthstar

Most scientific research is conducted properly and reported honestly but a few authors invent or manipulate data to reach fraudulent conclusions. Other types of misconduct include deliberately providing incomplete or improperly processed data, failure to follow ethical procedures, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of patient confidentiality, improper award or denial of authorship, failure to declare competing interests, duplicate submission and plagiarism. Editors, peer reviewers and publishers may also act wrongly. Good practice guidelines are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (The Vancouver Group) and the Council of Science Editors, amongst others. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides flowcharts to assist editors deal with authorial misconduct. Examples are provided of cases involving epidemiological or public health research, reported to COPE over the last 9 years. Suggestions are offered as to how misconduct might be handled in future.

Key words:

Scientific misconduct

Ethics

Journals

Research

Resumen

Aunque la mayor parte de la investigación científica se realiza y comunica de manera honesta, algunos pocos autores inventan o manipulan los datos para obtener conclusiones fraudulentas. Hay, además, otros tipos de malos comportamientos, como proporcionar deliberadamente información incompleta o mal procesada, vulnerar la confidencialidad de los pacientes, atribuir o denegar improcedentemente la autoría, no declarar algún conflicto de interés, publicar de forma duplicada y el plagio. Los editores y revisores externos también pueden actuar erradamente. El Comité Internacional de Directores de Revistas Médicas (el Grupo de Vancouver) y el Consejo de Editores Científicos han elaborado guías de buena práctica. El Comité de Ética en Publicación proporciona diagramas para ayudar a los editores a afrontar los casos de mal comportamiento. En este trabajo se comentan algunos casos prácticos de mala práctica en investigación en epidemiología y salud pública de entre los abordados por el Comité de Ética de publicación durante los últimos 9 años. Se presentan además sugerencias para tratar estas situaciones en el futuro.

Palabras clave:

Malas prácticas

Ética

Publicaciones

Investigación

El Texto completo está disponible en PDF

References

[1.]

Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication (updated February 2006) [accessed 7.5.2007]. Available from: http://www.icjme.org/

[2.]

Scott-Lichter D and the editorial policy committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston Va: CSE;2006 [accessed 7.5.2007]. Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf

[3.]

Committee on Publication Ethics Flowcharts (14) [accessed 7.5.2007] Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/flow-charts/cope-flowcharts-optimal.pdf/download

[4.]

R.B. Singh, S.S. Rastogi, R. Verma, L. Bolaki, R. Singh.

An Indian experiment with nutritional modulation in acute myocardial infarction.

Am J Cardiol, 69 (1992), pp. 879-885

Artículo | Medline

[5.]

C. White.

Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth.

BMJ, 331 (2005), pp. 288

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7511.288 | Medline

[6.]

M. Meguid.

Retraction of: Chandra RK.

Nutrition, 17 (2001), pp. 709-712

Medline

[7.]

C. Dyer.

Consultant struck off over research fraud.

BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 205-210

Medline

[8.]

D. Adam, J. Knight.

Publish and be damned.

Nature, 419 (2002), pp. 772-776

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/419772a | Medline

[9.]

J. Lexchin, L.A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic, O. Clark.

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:systematic review.

BMJ, 326 (2003), pp. 1167-1170

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 | Medline

[10.]

E. Von Elm, D.G. Altman, M. Egger, S.J. Pocock, P.C. Gotzsche, J.P. Vanderbroucke.

Strobe Initiative Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

BMJ, 335 (2007), pp. 806-808

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD | Medline

[11.]

Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org/initiatives/MOOSE/moose.pdf

[12.]

Rossner M. Digital Images and Misconduct. In: Scott-Lichter D, and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston, Va: CSE; 2006 [accessed 3.5.2007]. Available from: http://councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/3-4_digital.cfm

[13.]

P.C. Swain.

Closing some legal loopholes in the peer-review process in Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, September 1997.

JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 213-302

Medline

[14.]

A. Flanagin, L.A. Carey, P.B. Fontanarosa, S.G. Phillips, B.P. Pace, G.D. Lundberg, et al.

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed journals.

JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 222-224

Medline

[15.]

A. Jacobs, E. Wager.

European Medical Writers Association guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.

Curr Med Res Opin, 21 (2005), pp. 317-321

http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/030079905X25578Artículo | Medline

[16.]

A. Hussain, R. Smith.

Declaring financial interests: survey of five general medical journals.

BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 263-264

Medline

[17.]

J.E. Bekelman, Y. Li, C.P. Gross.

Scope and impact of financial conflict of interest in biomedical research:a systematic review.

JAMA, 289 (2003), pp. 454-465

Medline

[18.]

M.R. Tramér, D.J. Reynolds, R.A. Moore, H.J. McQuay.

Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: case study.

BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 635-640

Medline

[19.]

I. Chalmers.

Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak.

BMJ, 333 (2006), pp. 594-596

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38968.611296.F7 | Medline

[20.]

Complacency about misconduct. Nature. 2004;427:1.

[21.]

Revill J. How the drugs giant and a lone academic went to war [accessed 8.5.2007]. Available from: http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,9860,1658042,00.html

[22.]

J. Sudbo, J.J. Lee, S.M. Lippman, J. Mork, S. Sagen, N. Flatner, et al.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study.

Lancet, 366 (2005), pp. 1359-1366

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67488-0 | Medline

[23.]

Ekbom A, Helgesen GEM, Lunde T, Tverdal A, Vollser SE. Report from the Investigation Commission appointed by Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet MC and the University of Oslo, January 18, 2006 [accessed 3.5.2007]. English translation at: http://www.rikshospitalet.no/content/res_bibl/6876.pdf