Dr X asked for a statement to be published to the effect that the letter he had published in the journal with two co-authors was not based on any work that he had done, but on that of his colleagues. The editor asked the other two authors why they had signed a copyright form in these circumstances. Both authors stated that they had not signed any such form, and when presented with a copy, stated that their signatures had been forged. A letter was also sent to Dr X, inviting him to explain, but no response was received. The other authors said that the first they knew of the publication of the letter was when a hospital colleague told them. This prompted an internal enquiry. The medical director said that it would remain an internal matter provided Dr X contacted the journal to arrange the publication of a statement that the work published under his name as first author was not his, and that he wrote to all journals where the work was cited, requesting similar action to be taken. At the time of writing the letter, Dr X was a staff grade doctor in Hospital A. He was subsequently appointed a consultant in Hospital B and has since become a consultant at Hospital C. Hospital C is about 30 miles away from Hospital A. - Should Dr. X's current employers be informed of the incident or should the actions of Hospital A be deemed adequate? - Should Dr X’s regulatory body be informed of the incident?
- The forgery of medical practitioners’ signatures is extremely serious. - The head of Hospital A should have informed Dr X’s national regulatory body. - The journal should contact Hospital A, to verify the co-authors’ understanding of the matter. - The editor should also inform Hospital C and the regulatory body of the information they have received. - The editor should inform Dr X and Hospital A of the journal’s intentions.