Liz Wager, Publications Consultant for Sideview and member of COPE
Education Sub-Committee and BMJ Ethics Committee
When editors do decide to take action in cases of suspected research misconduct,
just how successful are they? In a bid to find out, I looked at those
cases published in the COPE reports (1998-2003) where editors
had taken on this task.
This study includes all 79 cases that been closed. It excluded all cases of
disputed authorship, but included all those of suspected author misconduct.
| Type | Total | Exonerated | Impasse | Contact institute | Lasted >1 year |
| Redundancy | 33 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 48% |
| Unethical research | 16 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 25% |
| Fraud | 13 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 62% |
| Med negligence | 10 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 70% |
| Plagiarism | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 14% |
| Total (%) | 79 | 16 (20) | 15 (19) | 23 (29) | 36 (46) |
In about one in five cases, the individual was exonerated. But in about 20%
of cases, an impasse was reached and editors got nowhere. Usually, it was a
complete lack of response, despite having tried all the different avenues.
In only about a third (29%) of cases did the journal editor contact the author's institution. Perhaps the impasse was reached, because
editors had not progressed beyond attempting to contact the author.
Around half the cases lasted for more than a year, and many of them went back
over decades when they started to unravel. Good record keeping is therefore
absolutely essential. In some instances, the case just disappeared because the
journal could not keep up with the paperwork.
Redundant publication
Analysis by theme shows that redundant publication is the most common category
of case reported to COPE (42 cases, 9 of which were still open). But
only one case led to a formal retraction. In four cases, the enquiries concluded
that there was some degree of overlap but not a deliberate attempt to deceive.
A notice of duplication was published in just six cases. In most cases, the
journal decided to take no public action.
Unethical research
There were 18 cases of unethical research, of which two were still open. Five
authors provided a satisfactory explanation; in one case, the editor looked
at it further, and realised that the author had already been struck off for
similar behaviour. But in four, the editors reached an impasse.
Fraud/fabrication
Fraud, fabrication and falsification comprised 15 cases of which two were still
open. In a couple of cases, the editor found an appalling track record, and
discovered that the author had already been suspended or struck off from
clinical practice. In one case, the journal had simply rejected the article and
imposed no sanctions. In one case, the journal published its concerns.
Fear of litigation prevents many journals from publishing concerns. It's a
huge problem. The more serious the allegations, the greater the desire to
publish concerns, but the more likely it is that the person will threaten legal
action at the very least. And these threats have to be taken seriously.
The journal lost the correspondence in one case and couldn't follow it up. When
the editors contacted the author's institution in another, no reply was
received, and in another they were given a brush-off, on the grounds
that the author was no longer an employee so it was not their concern.
Medical negligence
Medical negligence made up 11 cases of which one was still open. It usually
concerned unorthodox treatment or inadequate patient consent
Seven cases lasted more than a year and at least one author threatened legal
action. No replies were received from the institution or the regulatory body in
four cases.
Plagiarism
Five cases resolved, most of them were single authored; two were exonerated, and
in two the editor reached an impasse. Enquiries were begun in two, and in one
case the senior author reported a junior author. With paper evidence, it's easier to progress.
Key points
- In one in five cases, the matter was not resolved.
- Many authors simply don't respond.
- Many cases take longer than a year; some take more than three years.
- The responses can be disappointing.
- Journals seem reluctant to publish retractions, even when there is evidence of
malpractice.
Comments
- I went to the head of an institution in the UK, which held an investigation and
could certify no misconduct. The case was referred to the GMC, who said no
inquiry had been held and that there was evidence of misconduct, so the head of
the institution had just lied. - Within the NHS we are being encouraged to report anything we consider to be
fraud to the fraud squad, and there might be a place for referring these sorts
of cases to a professional institution. - I reported a case to the GMC involving embezzlement of money from a charitable
research fund. The trust board had agreed with the consultant that if he went
quietly, they would not inform the GMC or inform the police, and they would
destroy the evidence. When I reported this man to the GMC, the medical director
was the chair of the professional conduct committee. When I went to the NHS
fraud squad they told me: "We don't really worry unless it's more than £15
000."