Editing Scientific misconduct (section)

==Responsibilities==
===Authorship responsibility===
All authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication.

Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of [[The New England Journal of Medicine]] 1967–1977, Franz Ingelfinger.<ref>{{cite journal
 |last1=Toy |first1=Jennifer
 |year=2002
 |title=The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at The New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77
 |url=http://cseditors.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/v25n6p195-198.pdf
 |journal=[[Science Editor]]
 |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=195–198
}}</ref>

[[Honorary authorship|Guest authorship]] (where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of [[Gerald Schatten]] who co-authored with [[Hwang Woo-Suk]], the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce,<ref name="BMJ1995">{{Cite journal |title=Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud |journal=[[BMJ]] |date= June 17, 1995 |volume=310 |issue=6994 |pages=1547–148 |doi=10.1136/bmj.310.6994.1547 |pmid=7787632 |pmc=2549935 | last1 = Lock | first1 = S}} {{registration required}}</ref> (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception)<ref name="Independent Committee of Inquiry into the publication of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology">{{cite web |title=Independent Committee of Inquiry into the publication of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1994–1995) |url=http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/7/4972.htm |access-date=2011-08-26}}</ref> – and the coauthors with [[Jan Hendrik Schön]] at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff,<ref name="the-scientist.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/|title=Journal editor quits in conflict scandal|website=The Scientist|access-date=3 April 2018}}</ref> then the editor-in-chief of ''Neuropsychopharmacology'', and a well-documented case involving the drug [[Actonel]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.thejabberwock.org/wiki/index.php?title=Actonel_Case_Media_Reports |title=Actonel Case Media Reports - Scientific Misconduct Wiki |access-date=2008-03-22 |archive-date=2009-02-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090202055309/http://www.thejabberwock.org/wiki/index.php?title=Actonel_Case_Media_Reports }}</ref>

Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies.<ref name="the-scientist.com"/><ref>{{cite web|last=Dickerson |first=John |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/ |title=Did a British university sell out to P&G?  |website=Slate |date= 2005-12-22|access-date=2013-08-04}}</ref>

=== Research institution responsibility ===
In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the individual's employing academic institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest will compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the notable exception of the United States) acquisition of funds on the basis of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings of such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.

Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific misconduct. A King's College (London) internal investigation showed research findings from one of their researchers to be 'at best unreliable, and in many cases spurious'<ref>{{cite journal | author = Wilmshurst P | year = 2002| title = Institutional corruption in medicine (2002) | journal = British Medical Journal | volume = 325 | issue = 7374| pages = 1232–1235 | doi=10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1232| pmid = 12446544| pmc = 1124696}}</ref> but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring.

In a more recent case<ref>{{cite journal |last=Jayaraman |first=K. S. |title=Indian scientists battle journal retraction | journal=Nature |volume=447 | issue=7146 |date=June 14, 2007 | doi = 10.1038/447764a | pages=764 | pmid=17568715|bibcode=2007Natur.447..764J |doi-access=free }}</ref> an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct by [[Gopal Kundu]], but an external committee was then organised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the relevant journal (''[[Journal of Biological Chemistry]]'') withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.

===Scientific peer responsibility===
Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should consider taking informal action themselves, or reporting their concerns.<ref>See {{cite journal |author1=Gerald Koocher  |author2=Patricia Keith-Spiegel  |name-list-style=amp |date=22 July 2010| title= Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud | doi = 10.1038/466438a | bibcode=2010Natur.466..438K | volume=466 |issue=7305  | journal=Nature | pages=438–440 | pmid=20651674|s2cid=4396687 }} and (with Joan Sieber) Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide, July 2010.</ref> This question is of great importance since much research suggests that it is very difficult for people to act or come forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organizations. A "User-friendly Guide" and the existence of a confidential [[organizational ombudsman]] may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.<ref name="ioa2009">{{Cite journal |title=Dealing with{{snd}}or Reporting{{snd}}'Unacceptable' Behavior{{snd}}with additional thoughts about the 'Bystander Effect' |year=2009 |first1=Mary |last1=Rowe |first2=Linda |last2=Wilcox |first3=Howard |last3=Gadlin |journal=Journal of the International Ombudsman Association |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=52–64 |url=http://web.mit.edu/ombud/publications/coming-forward.pdf }}</ref>

===Responsibility of journals===
Journals are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by the [[Committee on Publication Ethics]] (COPE), which has issued clear guidelines<ref>[http://www.publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf Retraction Guidelines] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200326074637/http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf |date=2020-03-26 }} (PDF)</ref> on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns over the research record should take.
* The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
* Journal editors should consider issuing an [[expression of concern]] if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
* Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to issue an expression of concern or correspond with the host institution so that an investigation can be undertaken. In one case,<ref name="Kato">{{Cite journal
| last1 = Kim | first1 = M. S.
| last2 = Kondo | first2 = T.
| last3 = Takada | first3 = I.
| last4 = Youn | first4 = M. Y.
| last5 = Yamamoto | first5 = Y.
| last6 = Takahashi | first6 = S.
| last7 = Matsumoto | first7 = T.
| last8 = Fujiyama | first8 = S.
| last9 = Shirode | first9 = Y.
| doi = 10.1038/nature08456
| last10 = Yamaoka | first10 = I.
| last11 = Kitagawa | first11 = H.
| last12 = Takeyama | first12 = K. I.
| last13 = Shibuya | first13 = H.
| last14 = Ohtake | first14 = F.
| last15 = Kato | first15 = S.
| title = DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression
| journal = Nature
| volume = 461
| issue = 7266
| pages = 1007–1012
| year = 2009
| pmid = 19829383
| bibcode = 2009Natur.461.1007K| s2cid = 4426439
}}{{Retracted|doi=10.1038/nature11164|pmid=22699624|http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/13/shikeagi-kato-who-resigned-post-in-march-retracts-nature-paper/ ''Retraction Watch''|intentional=yes}}</ref> ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' allowed a [[Erratum|corrigendum]] to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent retraction of the paper required the actions of an independent whistleblower.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/shikeagi-kato-who-resigned-post-in-march-retracts-nature-paper/ |title=Shikeagi Kato, who resigned post in March, retracts Nature paper  |website=[[RetractionWatch]]  |date= 2012-06-13|access-date=2013-03-01}}</ref>

The cases of [[Joachim Boldt]] and [[Yoshitaka Fujii]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/major-fraud-probe-of-japanese-anesthesiologist-yoshitaka-fujii-may-challenge-retraction-record/ |title=Major fraud probe of Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii may challenge retraction record |website=[[RetractionWatch]] |date= 2012-03-08|access-date=2013-08-04}}</ref> in [[anaesthesiology]]  focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the editors-in-chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal ''[[Anesthesia & Analgesia]]'', which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate.  Following publication of a letter to the editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Kranke | first1 = P.
| last2 = Apfel | first2 = C. C.
| last3 = Roewer | first3 = N.
| last4 = Fujii | first4 = Y.
| title = Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly nice!
| journal = Anesthesia and Analgesia
| volume = 90
| issue = 4
| pages = 1004–1007
| year = 2000
| pmid = 10735823 | doi=10.1213/00000539-200004000-00053
| doi-access = free
}}</ref> along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. ''Anesthesia & Analgesia'' went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating<ref>[http://www.aaeditor.org/FujiiStatementOfConcern.pdf Fujii Statement of Concern] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002429/http://www.aaeditor.org/FujiiStatementOfConcern.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }} (PDF)</ref> in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement,<ref>[http://www.aaeditor.org/Fujii_Joint_EIC_Stmt.pdf Fujii Join EIC Statement] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042852/http://www.aaeditor.org/Fujii_Joint_EIC_Stmt.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }} (PDF)</ref> in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of the allegedly fraudulent papers.