Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '海外期权平台搭建开发【TG���������@EK7676】平台包网搭建海外期权平台搭建开发【TG���������@EK7676】平台包网搭建6bHI5Yb3xS'

Showing 1–20 of 22 results
  • Case

    Retraction of false authorship

    …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?…
  • Case

    Co authors’ unwillingness to support retraction of a review

    …papers), and E (review). The Journal C paper was reference 5 in the Journal A review. Dr X denied that he had “stolen” the figure. However, after an “expert review” Journal C concluded that the figures were the same and the journal’s editors retracted Dr X’s paper. Dr X has since started legal proceedings against one of the editors of Journal C. Professor W is pushing for a complete retraction of the…
  • Case

    Mislabelling/duplicate images

    …had occurred). I also discussed the case with our publisher. I then contacted the head of author X’s institute, copying in author X and his co-authors on the poster article. I told the institute head that I was making no assumptions about wrongdoing but presented the evidence and asked for an explanation. The matter was referred by the institute head to Dr Y, the Associate Vice President for…
  • Case

    New claim to authorship of published paper

    …also suggests that others in his research team gave author X considerable help with the internal document. He claims that author X has fraudulently used the work of author A and his co-workers, both in the internal document and in his PhD thesis. The editor’s suggestion was that author X’s name should be added to the authors of the published paper, as second author (compromising on the initial…
  • Case

    Referee with a conflict of interest

    …of Dr X’s report. Two months later Dr X submitted a paper to Journal A on exactly the same research topic, based on a combination of patient data from several research centres, but giving a much larger sample size than either of the aforementioned papers. The journal decided to reject the paper, as it did not add enough to previously published research. The journal editors thought that Dr X had…
  • Seminars and webinars

    Seminar 2021: Ethical practice in research data publication - challenges, lessons and opportunities

    … Over the past decade, we have seen a marked increase in the publication of research data, driven by journal, funder, and institutional policies. This has brought ethical challenges specific to datasets, which can affect the journal publication related to the…
  • Case

    Author non-disclosure by editor in chief

    …that the content of the editorial contained numerous inaccuracies and unsubstantiated accusations and (ii) that the editorial had an undeclared conflict of interest as an individual (Dr X) involved with the organisation that the editorial mentioned had influenced the writing and appearance of the content without Dr X’s name being disclosed The editor in chief was advised that this…
  • Case

    Suspected image manipulation involving four journals

    …received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined. Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal…
  • Case

    Author’s name removed from submitted article

    …meeting of the committee in the summer of 2003, since when he had heard no more about the study. The Editor could send the paper out for review, and leave it for person X to resolve the dispute with his co-authors; however, having been made aware of person X’s significant role in the study, and the Editor’s previous (albeit minor) involvement in the study’s steering committee, the Editor feels this may…
  • Case

    Self-plagiarism of review article

    …abbreviation is described in full instead).(5) In the remaining four sections, the majority of the text is identical except for a few similar minor changes, but has the occasional new sentence(s) and/or paragraph(s).(6) Four of the five images that appear in journal Y already appeared in journal X’s review article. Journal Y had no other images. Journal X’s paper is only cited once in…
  • Case

    Authorship dispute during the review process

    …affiliation B). A third researcher, Dr Z, was an author on the manuscript and at an institution in a different country. We asked Dr X whether they were aware of the manuscript from their postdoctoral researcher, Dr Y. Dr X was not aware and stated that Dr Y was funded solely by Dr X’s grant, and that they were working on a similar manuscript for submission elsewhere. Dr X requested that we withdraw…
  • Case

    Misunderstood requirements for authorship

    …“authorship” means academically. Upon reading your email I was at first quite surprised to see my name listed as a co-author. My second thought was that the questions that you raised with respect to co-authorship are related to the relative naivety of Dr X. He has only been in this country and at this university for the past three months. Earlier today I met with both Professor Y, who is Dr X’s
  • Case

    A(uthor) vs C(omplainant) authorship dispute

    …at institute X and asked them to investigate. Institute X’s dean responded 4 working days later endorsing C’s position on the basis that A had duplicated material, had misrepresented its novelty and did so both without permission or agreement from C. The investigation by institute X failed to communicate with A or ask for A’s response to the matter. When the findings were presented to A by…
  • Case

    Dispute among authors

    …received an email message directly from X, stating that the way the data from the participating site in question are presented (even after peer review and revision) is a misrepresentation. X also stated that those data cannot be used without X’s permission, and asked that, if the journal chose to publish the manuscript, those data should be deleted. The journal wrote to the corresponding author to ask…
  • Case

    Dispute over authorship and usage of research protocol

    The Forum was told by the editor that the case has since been resolved. The paper has been published with the amended author list—Professor X’s name was removed. The Forum suggested tightening up the journal’s authorship and contributorship criteria and also copying all authors on all correspondence rather than just the corresponding author to avoid the occurrence of a similar case in the…
  • Case

    Retraction or correction?

    …‘misuse’ of bands, and gave a number of explanations for what might have happened (based on inexperience of his technicians). He said that, ultimately, however, he took full responsibility for what happened, but would like the opportunity to publish a correction. Dr Y also emailed me to support Dr X’s request, vouching for Dr X as an honest scientist. Again, I have not heard from the heads of the…
  • Case

    Omitted author

    …(1) of the ICMJE criteria and hence should not have been listed as an author. People who contribute patients or data do not automatically qualify as authors. In this case, perhaps the person could have been put in the acknowledgement section for his contribution of the specific patient data rather than included as an author. The editor should have stood firm and refused to allow Professor X’s
  • Case

    Coauthor fails to respond to request to confirm coauthorship

    The Editor-in-Chief agreed to drop the proposal to have non-responsive coauthors forfeit authorship. A statement will be included in the acknowledgements, along the lines that author X was not available to confirm coauthorship, but the corresponding author Y affirms that author X contributed to the paper and vouches for author X’s coauthorship status.…
  • Case

    Possible fabricated data: a conspiracy of silence?

    …A third co-author explained that his role was “philosophical” rather than clinical. To his knowledge the study was conducted personally by Dr X, probably in his own country, and he only helped him with discussions and text revisions. Because several of Dr X’s papers were published by Journal A, I wrote to the editor of Journal A to see if he had any concerns. He replied that he had doubts…