Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Scientific misconduct
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===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 = 1007β1012 | 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 = 1004β1007 | 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.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)