- Guidelines
Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
…cases may lead to faster resolution of investigations, as well as strengthen the pursuit of those where further investigation is warranted. It should be acknowledged that confidential treatment of author submissions is a fundamental aspect of scientific publishing, and sharing of information concerning a specific journal submission with individuals who are outside the journal’s review process… - CaseCase Closed
Is ethics committee approval necessary for retrospective clinical studies?
A journal received a manuscript on risk factors for a disease, which had no ethics committee approval or dispensation. The clinical data were collected from the electronic and physical histories of the patients during hospitalization. The authors stated that the study was not submitted to an ethics review board because these data are "secondary." In some countries, this type of research will… - Case
Publishing complications and patient safety
…A suggestion was to publish one case per issue, deidentifying the data and to make all 120 presenters (or however many there are) the author(s). Another suggestion was to have a recurring column in a journal that has an ethics committee, who would review the cases and make necessary changes for protecting subjects’ identities. The journal could also seek institutional review of the cases to ensure that… - CaseOn-going
Habitual plagiarist
…informed my editorial board members about the case. One of the associate editors recognised author F’s name from another case report which had been accepted for publication at the journal. This second case report (CR2) had been reviewed and recommended by reviewers and no one suspected plagiarism. Following some research into this matter, the associate editor found that CR2 was an exact copy of another… - Case
A survey of doctors’ opinions, with no IRB approval or written consent
…would constitute an IRB for such a survey on issues relating to foreign medical graduates in the transition was a difficult one to answer. Thus no ethical review was done. However, all participants were adults, of sound mind, and implied consent to have their opinions published.” The paper has been rejected, but do the editors need to take further action? The risk of harm to the survey… - Case
Plagiarism and possible fraud
…detailing data from just 15 patients. A review of the author’s publication history revealed that s/he had changed “routes” over the past 5-6 years, publishing only fairly brief reports.… - Case
Paper submitted by a PR company without the knowledge of the authors
…drug company concerned, for which he had received a fee. He believed that a misunderstanding had led to the PR company to send the paper for review, but that he had no knowledge that they had done so, and suggested that the paper be shredded. Another author telephoned to say he could remember very little about it and certainly hadn’t seen the final document. A third author telephoned in some… - CaseCase Closed
Article published at two journals after withdrawal from first journal
…B contacted Journal A to clarify this matter. Journal A confirmed that the authors had submitted the article, which has gone through multiple rounds of peer review and been accepted by Journal A. Journal A further stated that after acceptance the authors were sent a PDF proof to check before publication. At this point, the authors requested withdrawal of their article citing the reason that their funder… - CaseOn-going
Unresponsive authors delaying publication
The journal received a submission which proceeded through peer review and was recommended for publication. The authors responded to the revision letter, providing a detailed itemised list of changes and revised their manuscript accordingly. The revised manuscript was subsequently accepted for publication. The normal process for articles in this journal is that when papers are accepted… - Case
Confidentiality and privacy issue
A manuscript was submitted from UK authors. The study was a case series of infants with a particular condition. A table in the manuscript contains descriptive data which are critically important for the readers with respect to understanding the risk of this condition in young infants and the likelihood of abuse. The question is whether this table violates the law with respect to confiden… - Case
Ethics approval for audit 1
A group in a developing country decided to do a survey of maternal mortality in relation to the available local facilities in the various regions of their country. They set up a small committee to look at the incidence and causes. They obtained the permission of the local authorities, including the local elders, community leaders, and local health care providers, to scrutinise records and asses… - Case
A paper describing a case of possible medical negligence
A paper was submitted, describing a doctor who had given an injection of a drug (actually a herbal/homeopathic remedy) to a patient who had already experienced recurrent swelling when given previous injections of the drug. The patient suffered a severe anaphylactic reaction, but survived. The reviewer suggests that it was negligent to give such an injection. It seems at least plausible that… - Seminars and webinars
Webinar 2021: Diversity, equity and inclusion
…Diversity, equity and inclusion in scholarly research and publishing This webinar, recorded May 2021, deals with the impact of discriminatory practices in editorial processes and peer review, promoting of social justice and equality in scholarly publishing, best practices around identity and name changes, including examples of implementation, and addresses… - CaseOn-going
Author alleges discrimination by institutional report
…research misconduct on the part of the corresponding author. The journal, publisher, and institution's integrity officer subsequently met to discuss the findings. Following the meeting, the institution provided a third version of a heavily redacted committee report, which was conducted to review multiple allegations against the corresponding author. The institution's committee concluded multiple… - CaseOn-going
Ethical concerns and the validity of documentation supplied by the authors
…paper, not letterhead, and was not received as an original hard copy. We therefore contacted the head of the ethics review committee who was different to the head on the document we had received and about which we had some concerns. The current head eventually confirmed after a second request that the doctor who had signed the previously supplied document was not on the committee. Ethics… - Case
Dual submission
Paper 1 was submitted to journal A. The paper dealt with monitoring of a chemical element in various occupations in a range of workplaces. Samples were taken from the workplace air and bodily fluids of the workers, and conclusions were drawn about what metabolite should be measured in order to estimate a worker’s dose of the element. The chosen reviewers were experts in relevant biological… - CaseCase Closed
Disputed change in authorship
A case control study was submitted to a journal. It was subjected to the usual peer review processes. After the required revisions, the article was accepted for publication. After acceptance, the journal received a letter from the corresponding author (author A) with a request to add the name of a new author (author B). The journal declined, stating that it would be unethical. … - CaseCase Closed
Service evaluation as research in a controversial area of medicine
…review was not required. Using the reference number cited in the article, the reader obtained the relevant documents from the research ethics committee via a freedom of information request. The reader argued that the documents from the ethics committee related to data that predated what was presented in the article. A review of the documents indicated that this appeared to be the case. In… - Seminars and webinars
Publication ethics in an open world
…manipulation; reviewer fraud; and paper mills. The responsibility for tackling these publication ethics issues lies with funders, institutions, researchers, journals, and publishers. It is a community problem that we need to work together to address. Watch webinar - Case
Redundant publication and a question of authorship
A paper was reviewed and subsequently published in December 1999. A further publication with an almost identical title, but with different authors, was published in another journal in 2000. It is quite clear both papers relate to the same study, and apart from some minor differences in style, which were probably requested by the editorial offices, they seem to be identical. The editor of the…