Expressions of concern and their uses

Learned Publishing

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 209-213

  Noonan, Bridget M ^a,b   Parrish, Debra ^a,b  

^a Parrish Law Offices   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949088260     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315108X288857     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. 'Research misconduct' is used throughout this paper rather than 'fraud' which has legal elements requiring intentional deception, reliance, and damages.
2. Scott-Lichter, D. and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston, VA, CSE, 2006. Available at http://www. councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf
3. The number of retracted articles alone numbers over 800 in the PubMed Retracted Articles search. For a general overview of research misconduct activity, see L.J. Rhoades, ORI Closed Investigations into Misconduct Allegations Involving Research Supported by the Public Health Service: 1994-2003. Rockville, MD, Office of Research Integrity, 2004. ORI points out on page 6 that over the ten-year period from which the data was drawn, 133 misconduct findings resulted from 259 investigations (51%). The annual average number of misconduct findings was 13, with a range of 8-24 findings. This report is available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/documents/Investigations1994- 2003-2.pdf
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Updated Oct 2007. Available at http://www.icmje.org/icmje.pdf
5. Scott-Lichter, D. and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors, CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, Section 3.5.1. Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors. org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/3-5_correcting.cfm. Accessed 13 June 2007.
6. Smith, J. and Godlee, F. 2005. Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. British Medical Journal 331: 245-6. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.331.7511.245
7. Ibid., p. 246.
8. Personal communication from Stephen R. Morrissey, 28 November 2007.
9. See Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2006 at p. 1(noting the longer period of time required to close cases involving a finding of misconduct), Table 3 at p. 4 (noting the length of time for closure of a misconduct investigation ranges from 2 to 109 months) and at p. 6 (noting that 75-80% of the 30 cases extending over more than two years at ORI resulted in institutional findings of misconduct). See also the case of Steven A. Leadon, in which concerns were raised about a paper shortly after publication in 1997, but the institutional investigation did not conclude until January 2005, more than seven years later, and the journal was not notified until 2006, resulting in a retraction eight years after publication (available from ORI under the Freedom of Information Act). A summary of the outcome of Steven Leadon's case is available in the Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2006, pp. 50-53. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/annual_reports/ ori_annual_report_2006.pdf
10. See e.g. Hwang (issued within two weeks of notification by the university) and Sudbø (issued within one week of notification in The Lancet).