- Case
Massaging the impact factor
The editor in chief of a journal started insisting that authors include references from the journal in their articles. S/he provided examples of acceptance letters from several other journals in the field, which insist that their authors do this, as evidence that it is standard and acceptable practice. The authors do not agree and think this is an unethical attempt to massage the impact factor.… - Case
Competing interest
An editorial board member of a journal submitted an unsolicited review article on a drug. The editor said the journal would consider the article, but suspected that the article had been commissioned or even written by a drugs company. S/he stipulated that the author must provide a financial disclosure statement before the article could be accepted. The journal published the review article, whic… - Case
Russian scientific misconduct
A letter was sent to an editor, claiming that scientific misconduct had taken place in Russia. The editor did not want to ignore the issue, which was not related to submitted papers and could not be published as a letter. But s/he was unsure what action to take. … This would be best pursued as an investigative news story.… - Case
Whose responsibility is duplicate submission?
Ten days after receiving an article for consideration, a group of editors received an email from the publisher informing them that the particular author in question had recently submitted nine articles to their journals, eight of which had been submitted in the previous seven weeks. Based on the similarity of the titles, the publisher had concerns about possible duplicate submission and had wri… - Case
Interactive case report of a patient with ongoing health problems
The case of a patient with unresolved upper abdominal pain and weight loss was written up and submitted by her family doctor to a journal that publishes interactive case reports. The intention was to present it as an unfolding story in three parts over five weeks. Responses would be invited on the journal’s website from readers to questions about diagnosis and management, and about what to say… - Case
Redundant publication
A complaint of redundant publication was made by a reader, who claimed that a second paper had been published in the journal, after the first had already been published elsewhere. No permission letter was obtained by the author of the second paper and the first paper had not been cited. … - The editors should write to the authors and publish a retraction. - The editors should write to the… - Case
Single patient trials and lack of data
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… - Case
Case report and consent
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
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… - Case
Interpretation of regulations: when is a waiver of authorisation acceptable?
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. But the authors stated that they consid… - Case
Dispute over plagiarism
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. Apparently, Author A had recently discovered that another review paper, co-authored with th… - Case
Plagiarism in a review article
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/… - Case
Online trial of a new diagnostic tool
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… - Case
The case of a physician in private practice offering an experimental intervention
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 a… - Case
Anonymous information
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? … The editor should contact the named person who had allegedly been left off. … We did… - Case
Possible malpractice revealed in a case report
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 term… - Case
Lack of ethics committee approval?
An editor received a paper and requested details of ethical approval from the authors. The authors replied that they had approached the ethics committee about carrying out a more extensive study than the one submitted, for which ethical approval was denied or possibly thought unnecessary - the authors’ English isn’t clear in their responses. Before the start of the more extensive study, the aut… - Case
Obtaining consent for a study of people with severe learning disabilities
A paper was submitted which reported a study of observing people with severe learning disabilities and their interactions with staff on a locked hospital ward. The journal was keen to consider the paper further, but had concerns about ethical approval. The authors stated in their cover letter that ‘Ethical approval was sought from the Research Ethics Committee, but the Committee deemed that the… - Case
Duplicate submission
The authors submitted a paper to journal A on genetic analysis of a potentially pathogenic organism isolated from children, analysed by school attended. Six days later, the same authors submitted a paper to journal B on genetic analysis of the same organism isolated from children, analysed by socio-economic class. The papers appear to be different analyses of the same data, and substantial port… - Case
Attempt at multiple plagiarism
In January 2004 a submission was made to Journal A from a laboratory in a different country. In April 2004 it was bought to the editor’s attention that the manuscript was a verbatim copy of a paper published in 2003 in another journal, Journal B. The only difference between the manuscripts was that the names and affiliations of the authors on the second paper were different to the first paper.…