Questions were raised regarding the validity of data in two published papers (from the same author). The journal therefore followed the initial steps as listed in the COPE flowchart ‘What to do if you suspect fabricated data’ and contacted the author as appropriate.
The author responded promptly and provided all the information requested (ethics approval letters, the original protocols and any amendments, the study datasets, and the statistical analysis protocols and any amendments).
However, what to do next is unclear.
Questions for COPE Council
- How should journals determine whether an author’s response to concerns is satisfactory or unsatisfactory?
- Is it the journal’s role to probe the data in cases of suspected data fabrication to establish whether they can be valid?
- If it is not the role of journals and journal editors to perform full investigations into data validity and possible misconduct, how can a journal know whether to refer a matter to an institution?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
There are, in essence, two phases of action to consider. The first is a preliminary investigation by the journal to see if there is a case to answer. It would be appropriate for the editor to ask a member of their editorial team to do a review of the material. This need not be a full investigation but one that is sufficient to ensure that the material used in the publications meets validity standards.
The next stage (assuming that questions remain after the authors have responded, or in the case of no response having been received) is to involve the host institution(s).
The editor should be cautious in interpreting the authenticity of any response by the authors if there is no corroborating evidence (eg, trial registration or raw data) to examine. Some cases of data fabrication are extremely complex and best handled by the institution.
In answer to the three questions.
1. Most journals or associations have rules on this. However, if that is not the case, then the editors must make a decision based upon a review of the information they have. This could be done by a team of scholars from the editorial team and not just the editor alone.
2. It is appropriate for the journal to probe the data for the validity of the data. Authors (usually) indicate that they meet ethical standards as outlined by the journal.
3. While it is not the role of journals to sanction individuals, they can make decisions about the articles they published in good faith. Hence they can investigate when they believe that faith is breached.