medigraphic.com

2014, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2014; 52 (2)

Fraudulent publication in medical journals|

Becerril-Ángeles M, García-Gómez F

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 182-187
PDF size: 60.02 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Fraud can be present in some scientifi c medical publications; however, the magnitude of this situation is unknown. One of the associated factors for this transgression of the good practice of investigation is the need to publish and obtain recognition and benefi ts, regardless of the means. The deliberate fabrication and falsifi cation of data, plagiarism and duplication of publications are some of the scientifi c misconducts. Many cases of fraud in publications are known, and they have reached public opinion and have been a matter of legal sanctions (the names of Woo Suk Hwang, Jon Sudbo, Joachim Blodt, Robert Slutsky, and William Summerlin reminds us a few known cases). In the last decades, national and international regulatory organisms have been created in order to intervene against this scientifi c misconduct. Currently, we can rely on several effective software programs, whose function is to detect plagiarism and falsifi cation of data. The prevention of scientifi c misconduct through information and education of the investigators could lead to the decrease of the presence of this problem, which damages scientifi c credibility and put at risk the patient’s safety.


REFERENCES

  1. Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, Wager E, Jacobs A, Gertel A. et al. What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Med. 2009;6(2):e23. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.1000023.

  2. The Offi ce of Research Integrity (ORI). Policies on Research Misconduct, (42 CFR Part 93) June 16, 2005. The Offi ce of Research Integrity, U. S. Department of Human Health and Services.

  3. Hall RI. Mea culpa: Scientifi c misconduct. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26(2):181-5. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.12.003. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

  4. Markman JR, Markman M. Running an ethical trial 60 years after the Nuremberg code. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(12):1139-46.

  5. Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274(24):1354-60.

  6. Becerril-Ángeles M. La ética en las publicaciones de revistas médicas. Rev Alergia Mex. 2010; 57(4):105-6.

  7. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

  8. Smith R. What is research misconduct? The COPE Report 2000: The Committee on Publication Ethics. BMJ. 2000;317:7-11.

  9. Scanlon PM. Song from myself: An anatomy of selfplagiarism. Plagiary. 2007;2:57-66.

  10. Irwin RS, Augustyn N, French CT, Rice J, Welch SJ. Spread the word about the journal in 2012. From impact factor to plagiarism and image falsifi cation detection software. Chest. 2012;141:1-4.

  11. Ciccuto L. Plagiarism: Avoiding the peril in scientifi c writing. Chest. 2008;133:579-81.

  12. Health Canada/Santé Canada. Policy Division/Division de la politique. Regulations amerding the food and drug regulations (1024-clinical trials). Ottawa. Health Canada/Santé Canada; 2001.

  13. Hoffart J, Teichmann A, Wessler I. Biomedical research in Germany: The role of ethics committee and state medical association. Anesth Analg. 2011; 112:501-3.

  14. The good, the bad, and the ugly. South Afr J Sci. 2003; 99:402-3.

  15. Tavare A. Scientifi c misconduct is worryngly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey. BMJ. 2012; 344:e377. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e377.

  16. Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:344-6. doi:10.1136/jme.27.5.344.

  17. Baerlocher MO, O´Brien J, Newton M, Gautam T, Noble J. Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research. Eur J Intern Med. 2010;21:40-5.

  18. Marshall E. Scientifi c misconduct – How prevalent is fraud? That’s a million-dollar question. Science. 2000;290:1662-3.

  19. Rossner M, Yamada KM. What´s in a picture. The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol. 2004;166:11-5.

  20. Glick JL. Scientifi c data audit – A key management tool. Ac. count Res. 1992;2:153-68.

  21. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, Robinson A, Rowlands I. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:348-53.

  22. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005;435:737-8.

  23. Gerber P. What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbo affairs? Med J Aus. 2006;184:632-5.

  24. Claxton LD. Scientifi c authorship. Part 1. A window into scientifi c fraud? Mutat Res. 2005;589:17-30.

  25. Fernández-Mondéjara E, Ceraso H. Un estrepitoso caso de fraude científi co. Med Intensiva. 2011;35:323-7.

  26. Whitely WP, Rennie D, Hafner AW. The scientifi c community's response to evidence of fraudulent publication. The Robert Slutsky case. JAMA 1994;272:170-3.

  27. Ramiro-H M. Carta al editor. Med Intern Mex. 2008;24(1):87

  28. Ethical and legal considerations. En: Iverson Ch, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. editors. AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors. Tenth edition. Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 125-300.

  29. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. [Sitio web]. Recommendations. Publishing and Editorial Issues. Scientifi c Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction.

  30. Garner HR. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol. 2011, 29(1):95-9.

  31. Li Y. Text-based plagiarism in scientifi c publishing: issues, developments and education. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012; 18:1-14.

  32. Potthast M, Barron-Cedeño A, Stein B, Rosso P. Cross-language plagiarism detection. Lang Resources & Evaluation. 2011;45:45-62.

  33. Yuehong Z. Cross Check: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing. 2010; 23:9-14.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com