Publication fraud: Implications to the individual and to the specialty

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 154-159

  Miller, Donald R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Data fabrication; plagiarism; publication: publication ethics; scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIOLOGY; ARTICLE; FRAUD; HUMAN; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; WRITING;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; PLAGIARISM; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 79952992554     PISSN: 09527907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328344529d     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [homepage on the internet]. http://www.equator-network.org. [Accessed 29 November 2010]. The international group for 'Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research' (EQUATOR network) is an international initiative that strives to provide resources (e.g., reporting guidelines) for authors, reviewers and editors to enhance the accuracy and quality of reported research.
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [homepage on the internet]. http://www.icmje.org. [Accessed 29 November 2010]. The International Committee of Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides uniform requirements for manuscript and guidelines for providing clear, easily accessible and accurate reports of research studies. The initial part the ICMJE uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals addresses standards for article submission and related ethical issues, as well as guidance about relationships between authors, editors and reviewers.
3. Good clinical practice Guidelines. http://www.clinical-research-training. org/good-clinical-practice-guidelines/Research Training. [Accessed 29 November 2010].
4. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 2006;185:152-154. (Pubitemid 44262800)
5. Sleen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 2010 [Epub ahead of print]. This article shows that of 788 English language articles retracted from PubMed between 2000 and 2010, there are a number of instances where authors deliberately, and repeatedly committed publication fraud.
6. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 2009;4: e5738; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
7. LaFollette MC. Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkely: University of California Press; 1992.
8. Buranen L, Roy AM. Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. New York: State University of New York Press; 1999.
9. World Association of Medical Editors [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.wame.org. [Accessed 29 November 2010]. The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) is a nonprofit organization of medical journal editors throughout the world whose primary goal is to promote collaboration and education amongst journal editors on issues of common interest. One of WAME's specific goals is to achieve the highest levels of ethical journalism and WAME provides a listserve and related resources to do so.
10. White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 2005;331:281.
11. Cullen DJ. Ghostwriting in scientific anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology 1997;87:196-206.
12. Miller DR. Disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical publications. Can J Anesth 2008;55:265-269. (Pubitemid 351668930)
13. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [homepage on the Internet]. http://publicationethics.org. [Accessed 29 November 2010]. The Committee on Publication Ethics is an International forum for editors and publishers to network and to collaborate on ethical issues related to scientific and medical publication. The COPE flow diagrams are one of the most practical aspects ofCOPE, providing practical guidance on the handling of ethical problemsin publishing.
14. Anonymous. Are journals doing enough to prevent fraudulent publication? CMAJ 2006;174:431, 433.
15. Nielsen KC, Guller U, Steele SM, et al. Influence of obesity on surgical regional anesthesia in the ambulatory setting: an analysis of 9, 038 blocks. Anesthesiology 2005;102:181-187. (Pubitemid 40082855)
16. Cotter JT, Nielsen KC, Guller U, et al. Increased body mass index and ASA physical status IV are risk factors for block failure in ambulatory surgery: an analysis of 9, 342 blocks. Can J Anesth 2004;51:810-816. (Pubitemid 39561936)
17. Todd M. A lesson learned. Can J Anesth 2005;52:770-771.
18. Parrish D. Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Acad Med 1999;74:221-230. (Pubitemid 29136389)
19. Trikalinos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:464-470. (Pubitemid 351446189)
20. Shafer SL. Tattered Threads. Anesth Analg 2009;108:1361-1363.
21. White PF, Kehlet H, Lui S. Perioperative analgesia: What do we still know? Anesth Analg 2009;108:1364-1367.
22. Miller DR. Special notice to readers and authors on scientific misconduct. Can J Anesth 2009;56:408-411.
23. Budd J, Sievert ME, Schultz T. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citation to valid publications. JAMA 1998;280:296-297. (Pubitemid 28493915)
24. Couzin J, Unger K. Scientific misconduct: cleaning up the paper trail. Science 2006;312:38-43.
25. White Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retractions, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons learned from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:606-613.
26. Eisenach J. Data fabrication and article retraction: how not to get lost in the woods. Anesthesiology 2009;110:955-956.