author mistakes

A new Editor was appointed to a society journal in a minority medical specialty. An officer of the society immediately handed him an anonymous letter from a reader of the journal complaining that an article recently published was unethical. The Editor is a personal friend both of the previous editor who accepted the paper, and the author of the paper. The paper is by a single author who gives no affiliation to an academic organisation. The report describes a cohort study of patients to whom he had given treatment X over previous years. In the world literature, treatment X has been reported to cause endocarditis in a small number of patients, the majority of whom had risk factors. The author invited his patients back for a clinical examination together with blood and urine tests for markers of endocarditis, and echocardiogram. He did not seek permission for the study from an ethics committee, and did not obtain informed consent formally from the patients, though the study’s purpose was discussed with them all. The report is of considerable scientific and clinical importance, being the first in which the presence of endocarditis after treatment X was systematically sought, and its results (no cases were found) provide some supporting evidence that the risk of endocarditis after treatment X is low. The author said that the project grew out of his initial concern for the wellbeing of his patients, and he did not realise he had passed the threshold of requiring ethics approval. The Editor’s close personal involvement at several levels makes it very difficult for him to make a decision on what action should be taken.

An author who published an article in Journal A at the end of the year wrote to advise that it would have to be retracted on the grounds that his PhD tutor, Professor X, had already submitted a similar manuscript more than a year earlier to another journal. In the absence of any contact from the tutor, the author had assumed that this manuscript had not been accepted and went ahead with her own submission. She then explained that some personal and professional issues had distracted her for some time, after which her PhD tutor told her that his manuscript had indeed been accepted and published elsewhere. The lengthy review process had caused serious delays since it was first submitted, he said. The second paper was published two months after the first. The letter writer and Professor X are listed as authors on both the papers. The copyright assignment form for Journal A shows that Professor X was a signatory and therefore knew that the paper was under consideration.

A journal had two incidences in which a questionnaire was used in studies without permission of the originators of the questionnaires. Both manuscripts originated in different countries, and used different questionnaires. 1. A manuscript was submitted which addressed quality of life issues. The referees had various concerns about the data and methods, and the authors were invited to revise the manuscript. At that point the authors contacted the originator of the questionnaire they had translated and used, requesting permission to use the questionnaire and asking for assistance with the issues the referees had identified as problematic. Permission had not been sought to translate and use the questionnaire before this. The creator of the questionnaire objected to its use in this particular study, and to it being used in a non-approved translation. Culturally specific translations are apparently available. The main concern was that an inappropriate translation could lead to potential errors in the study, as well as concerns about the propriety and legality of the study. The editor contacted the author, highlighting the concerns of the questionnaire’s originator, and the author chose to withdraw the manuscript. No other action has been taken to date. 2. A submitted manuscript reported a study based on a specific, validated questionnaire. One of the referees pointed out that the centre where the study had been conducted was not registered as an approved centre for this survey, and that neither the relevant Steering Committee nor the relevant International Data Centre had any contact with the authors. The survey’s publication policy states that non-registered centres may not use the acronym. The manuscript was rejected on the basis of poor science, and the authors recommended to contact the survey, regarding registration and for permission to use the questionnaire.

A paper was submitted and reviewed by one referee, who recommended that the paper be revised and then refereed again. The authors submitted the revised version which went back to the initial reviewer. In his second report the reviewer raised concerns that the revised version was fundamentally different from the first paper. The number of patients and the inclusion criteria had changed. This was put to the authors, who explained that the studies were of two different non-overlapping patient populations that they were investigating at the same time. They had intended to send only the second study in their original submission, but inadvertently submitted the first one by mistake. This was realised at the point of revisions, so they submitted the second study with an explanation in the covering letter. What should the editors have done?

A study by Japanese authors was submitted to specialist journal A. The manuscript was sent to three reviewers, including expert X. After two weeks, expert X contacted the editorial office to say that an identical manuscript had been sent by the competing specialist journal B to expert Y in the same unit as expert X. Expert X and expert Y had compared and discussed both manuscripts. Expert X said that the Japanese authors were clearly attempting dual publication, were therefore completely unethical,and should be reprimanded severely. As editor of journal A,what should be done about: 1 The issue of apparently simultaneous submission to two journals? 2 The breach of con?dentiality by expert X (and also expert Y, commissioned by another journal B)?

A paper described an unusual approach to disease modulation in an experimental animal model. The apparently clear cut findings were somewhat surprising. The authors also seem to have used high and low power photomicrographs of the same tissue sections to illustrate completely different experiments within the study. This occurred twice in the paper. Furthermore, this particular area of study was a complete departure from the previous work of the first and senior authors. The editor wrote to the authors pointing out that the photos were the same. He received a garbled response, saying that computer photomicrographs got muddled up. There were 15 authors, all of whom were faxed. The first author responded immediately.

We have accepted a systematic review for publication and have commissioned an accompanying commentary. The authors of the commentary noticed that a particular randomised controlled trial was included in the systematic review while a duplicate version of the trial, published in another journal, was excluded because of inadequate randomisation. The authors of the commentary pointed this out in their commentary. We showed the commentary to the authors of the review (as is our practice) and they said that they had excluded the duplicate version of the study, not because of inadequate randomisation, but because it was a duplicate. The authors of the review have thus changed their text. The authors of the commentary find this explanation hard to believe and want to include a sentence in their commentary, making the point that the review was changed in the penultimate draft. We think that it is unsatisfactory to publish the commentary in this way, because it leaves a serious accusation hanging in the air. Either we must accept that the authors of the systematic review made an error and not mention it in the commentary, or we must raise the possibility of research misconduct and ask the host institution to investigate. What does COPE think we should do?