2002

A paper was accepted, pending a revised version, which made use of official government information on reported health reactions in a particular age group over a 20 year period. Two of the authors were academics and two worked for the government’s health department. When the revision arrived, the names of the latter two authors were missing.

A paper was submitted, detailing a double blind placebo controlled food challenge to a group of children. The reviewer considered the study unethical because he was concerned consent could not have been properly informed. He believed there was a very small risk of anaphylaxis—even death—and had this been explained to the parents, they would not have consented. The editor considered that the reviewer could well be right.

A paper described a problem of two women who wanted their fetuses to be tested for a genetic condition, but where in both cases their partners had refused to give consent. Should the journal publish such a paper without obtaining consent from the partners? The editors think not, but the authors are unconvinced.

Authors A, B, and C submitted a paper about the behaviour of a group of doctors. All the authors came from one institution, where the doctors’ behaviour had been studied. Author A did the data collection under the supervision of author B, who was obviously responsible for the design of the study and acted as guarantor. Author C was an official at the institution. The journal accepted it after revision, edited it, and sent out proofs. All the correspondence had been with author B.

A randomised controlled trial was submitted, showing that a new treatment, which is a combination of familiar compounds, is highly beneficial in a common but largely untreatable problem. The authors came from several different countries and included people from the company that manufactures the treatment. The editors had great difficulty finding reviewers for the paper as many simply returned it, saying that they could not produce an opinion.

On review of a paper for Journal A, a referee recognised entire paragraphs of the manuscript from two published review articles that he himself had written. Both reviews were referenced in the manuscript with regard to particular topics, but the verbatim paragraphs were not attributed to the previously published reviews. The editor rejected the paper and pointed out the apparent plagiarism to the authors.

An identical paper was submitted simultaneously to two journals. Both editors had received a signed statement from the authors declaring that their paper had not been submitted elsewhere. Duplicate submission became evident only when the associate editor of one of the journals was sent the paper to review by the editor of the other journal.

Journal A received a letter from a reader claiming that a figure in a paper published in the journal had appeared in various guises in three other learned publications over the course of 12 years. The origin of the figure was disputed and the reader believed the original source was not the authors. The authors of the paper in Journal A were asked to comment. They refuted the claim.

A study was submitted in which the authors describe a new surgical technique, which includes radiofrequency coagulation, to treat complete prolapse of the rectum. They say in their paper that: “in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, no operation stands out in comparison to the others.” The authors do not seem to have received either ethics committee approval or consent from the patients. How should the editors proceed?