- Case
The study that may or may not already have been published
A study purported to have been stimulated by a systematic review that had already been published in the journal. The new study included 15 patients who had been treated in one arm of a study and 15 who had been treated in another arm. The peer reviewers noticed that the original systematic review included 31 patients from the same authors. The editor contacted the authors asking them to make cl… - Case
A paper describing a case of possible medical negligence
A paper was submitted, describing a doctor who had given an injection of a drug (actually a herbal/homeopathic remedy) to a patient who had already experienced recurrent swelling when given previous injections of the drug. The patient suffered a severe anaphylactic reaction, but survived. The reviewer suggests that it was negligent to give such an injection. It seems at least plausible that thi… - Case
The unacceptable use of a placebo
This was a small randomised controlled trial of a medication for an active inflammatory condition. The trial was unnecessary, as several large trials and a recent non-systematic review had shown that the medication was beneficial for flare-ups of the condition. In this case, all patients were taken off non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and then they were randomly allocated to recei… - Case
Paper submitted by a PR company without the knowledge of the authors
A paper was submitted for which there were seven contributors, but no corresponding author. The only identification of who had sent the paper was an accompanying e-mail from a public relations company. When contacted by the editorial office, the PR company confirmed that the paper was to be considered for possible publication. The named contributors were then contacted and asked whether they ha… - Case
Duplicate publication based on government data
A group of researchers from departments of psychology and public health submitted a paper based on a survey that had been commissioned by the NHS Executive. The paper was received at Journal A on 14 May 1998 and a decision to offer publication of a revised version was made on 25 June 1998. Over a year elapsed between this offer and the resubmission of a revised version of the paper due to illne… - Case
The single author, randomised controlled trial
After a randomised controlled trial from a single author had been published, a letter was received in which the correspondent suggested that the original trial might be fraudulent. Firstly, the writer claimed that it was highly unlikely that just one author could perform a prospective, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial, especially in a small district hospital. The correspondent… - Case
Editorial compliance with duplicate publication
An editorial that was very close to a paper that had already been published in another journal was submitted for publication. The authors did not make clear that the editorial was essentially the same as the one already published, but this was discovered during the peer review process. Nevertheless, the journal went ahead and published the editorial without disclosing that it was very similar t… - Case
The overlapping papers with conflicting data
Three papers concerning one hospital problem had been submitted to three different journals. Before publication the three editors of the journals became aware of the three different papers and the substantial overlap between them. The three editors communicated with each other and realised that they had four concerns: 1. There was very considerable overlap among the three papers. There didn’t s… - Case
A surgical series that is scientifically meaningless, has no ethics committee approval, and does not mention informed consent
A study from a foreign author was submitted in which he describes a series of patients whom he has operated on to treat their migraine. The operation is something that he has devised himself and consists of suturing a superficial temporal artery. The surgeon has operated on over 1200 patients. There is no clear definition of how the diagnosis was made and no control group. There is no mention o… - Case
Author dispute concerning ownership of data
A paper submitted to Journal X was reviewed and rejected with the recommendation that it be submitted to a more clinical journal. The paper was duly submitted to Journal Y. The authorship was A, B, C, D and E, with E being the corresponding author linking together two research groups in different cities, but in the same country. Journal Y sent the paper to reviewers and, after discussion, thei… - Case
Misconduct on a massive scale?
Almost five years ago two outsiders approached an editor suggesting that a large series of papers from a particular researcher, including some published in high profile journals, might be fraudulent. Those contacting the editor thought it possible that the patients described in the studies had never existed at all. Round about the same time a few papers from this author were circulating in the… - Case
The declared and the undeclared competing interests
An editorial was published on a particular subject in which the author’s competing interests were declared. He had given evidence on behalf of patients making a claim against a manufacturer. Three people then separately pointed out that we had already published a commentary on the same subject in which there had been no declaration of competing interest for the author. The three people all said… - Case
The results that were too good to believe
A study made it a long way through the peer review process before one of the statistical advisors said that the results seemed “too good to be true.” The authors were asked to send in the original data, which the statistician analysed. He remained very concerned about the data. The authors were notified and the journal asked the university to investigate. Has the editor done the right thing? - Case
Invasive intervention without consent
A study was submitted on the safety and feasibility of treating patients with acute stroke with an invasive procedure that would cause them considerable discomfort. The editor did not want to publish the study because it had negative results, did not include a power calculation, and was almost certainly too small to detect a clinically useful difference. The study had obtained local ethics comm… - Case
Publication bias arising from an editor’s activities
The committee’s attention has been drawn to alleged publication bias in Journal X. It is alleged that an editor on X had invited a young trainee in radiology to author some 14 commentaries over the past 5 years. His most recent commentary draws attention to one important study from France but otherwise covers the same territory as his previous commentaries without mention of relevant contrary… - Case
Who ensures the integrity of the editor?
An editor came across a letter from the editor-in-chief of his journal to a reviewer that asserted he had recommended the acceptance of a manuscript. He had in fact recommended the opposite, both verbally and in writing. The paper in question was a guideline on the therapeutic choices for a relatively common medical condition. The authors had claimed their conclusions and therapeutic recommenda… - Case
Compromise of patient confidentiality?
A paper containing three case reports of the same disease was accepted for publication. The disease reported is fairly rare. The parents of one of the cases consented to publication on condition that their daughter was referred to in the paper by her first name rather than as a case number. This particular case has been discussed in the course of a national inquiry, but it is not clear whether… - Case
Dual publication may be necessary in some situations
At a recent editorial board meeting it was suggested that in some disciplines straddling several specialties, transparent simultaneous publication might be necessary. It was suggested that this applies to sexually transmitted infections, and different readers may not have access to each other’s journals. For example, in a study of human papilloma virus epidemiologists, virologists, STD physicia… - Case
An anonymous letter in response to qualitative research
Some two months after publishing a piece of qualitative research about health behaviour in an ethnic minority group, an anonymous letter suggested that the work might be fraudulent. The letter was in very poor English, but made two main points. Firstly, the original study did not make clear how many women were included, and secondly, the anonymous respondent could not understand who could have… - Case
Rights of reviewers
A clinical professor of medicine was asked to act as a reviewer for a submitted paper.The paper had not been presented publicly or in abstract form. The reviewer returned an extensive list of suggested alterations, but rated the paper highly. The other two reviewers also rated the paper highly, but suggested only minor modifications. The editor invited the authors to undertake a minor revision…