A paper was received which described a double blind cross over study investigating the effect of a drug in pruritus as a result of chronic cholestasis. Both reviewers recommended rejection on the grounds that the information contained in the paper was not new. Both cited a study published four years earlier in a high impact factor journal which essentially dealt with the same question. One of the reviewers, however, felt that the two studies were “almost identical” raising the possibility of plagiarism. The editor sent the manuscript and the two reviews to a third reviewer to arbitrate, and in particular, to examine whether concerns should be raised about the similarities of the two papers. What should the editor do next?
_ The third reviewer found no evidence of plagiarism, despite the similarities in both papers. The editor did not request the original data, and the committee acknowledged that the data could have been falsified. _ The presentation of the papers was similar, but drug companies often use the same format for reporting, so they would, in fact, look the same. _ The Cochrane Group finds it acceptable to use the methods section from one paper in another, but this must be acknowledged and cited in the paper.
No further action required.