You are here

2004

Case

Single patient trials and lack of data

04-28

The editor received a paper describing two single patient trials. Both peer reviewers recommended publication, although each of them pointed out the absence of real data. It was an unusual case where parents with small children were involved in a series of challenges to ascertain whether the babies were allergic to cows’ milk. The authors explained the lack of data by saying that the study was conducted 20 years ago. But it emerged that the researcher was discussing single patient trials.

Case

Case report and consent

04-27

A journal provisionally accepted a case report. When requested, the authors could not identify patients to obtain their signed consent. The authors offered to anonymise the data, but the journal was inclined to decline. - What should the editor do?

Case

Palestinian refugee conditions

04-26

A journal received a simple, cross-sectional survey of Palestinian refugees. The author was a Palestinian, employed by a charity and undertaking research based at a university overseas. The study contained new data and within the constraints of a cross-sectional survey seemed methodologically sound. The paper was sent to two peer reviewers with expertise in the area, experience in international issues in the Middle East, and an understanding of the sensitivities involved.

Case

Interpretation of regulations: when is a waiver of authorisation acceptable?

04-25

Some authors tested the effect of a food on the menstrual cycle. The manuscript included patient identifiable information, but the authors did not provide formal confirmation that the patients consented to publication of the study. Information was sent to the corresponding author, outlining legal obligations in respect of patients' consent to publication.

Case

Dispute over plagiarism

04-24

A review article, written by two authors, was spontaneously submitted to Journal X and accepted for publication after favourable comments from the referees. A few weeks later, and before the paper had been published, Author A withdrew authorship because he could not guarantee the originality of the text.

Case

Plagiarism in a review article

04-23

A review article was spontaneously submitted and sent out to three peer reviewers, which is standard practice for the journal. One of these reviewers expressed “serious concerns” about the paper. In a telephone conversation, s/he explained that the structure (headings, subheadings, etc), large “chunks of the text,” and most of the references had been plagiarised from a teaching syllabus that s/he had written for a recent teaching session on the same subject.

Case

Online trial of a new diagnostic tool

04-22

A paper was submitted that attempted to evaluate a new tool for diagnosing an acute symptom. This symptom is one that could be linked with various medical conditions—some causing little harm and some life threatening. The researchers recruited (and continue to recruit) patients into the study through a website devoted to this symptom. Patients viewing the website are asked if they would like to take part in an online survey.

Case

The case of a physician in private practice offering an experimental intervention

04-21

A physician in private practice wrote to our journal asking if we were interested in a paper discussing his experience of offering a novel intravenous therapy to his patients. He hoped we wouldn’t discriminate against him for being an author in private practice. He had given this therapy to nine patients with a variety of acute and chronic illnesses, including himself. The physician says that all patients went into remission. He did not compare this new therapy against any standard therapy.

Case

Anonymous information

04-20

We have received an allegation from an anonymous phone caller that an author has been wrongly omitted from a Viewpoint published 2 years ago. The claim was made that the author's contribution was suppressed by the institution.

Should we act on such information? And if yes, what should we do?

Case

Possible malpractice revealed in a case report

04-19

We received a case report describing the diagnosis and treatment of a middle-aged woman who presented to a gastroenterology service in England with weight loss and a right iliac fossa mass. The authors did a barium swallow, duodenal and gastric biopsies, and diagnosed Crohn’s disease by the radiological appearances on follow-through. They did not do a colonoscopy, or biopsy the mass in the terminal ileum.

Pages