Editorial misconduct—Definition, cases, and causes

Publications

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 51-60

  Shelomi, Matan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Editors; Journals; Peer review; Retraction; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939239374     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications2020051     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Smith, R. Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. J. R. Soc. Med. 2006, 99, 232–237.
2. Maintaining the Integrity of Scientific Research. In Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 1st ed.; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; p. 1455.
3. Fang, F.C.; Steen, R.G.; Casadevall, A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 17028–17033.
4. Neill, U.S. Stop misbehaving! J. Clin. Investig. 2006, 116, 1740–1741.
5. Greitemeyer, T. Article retracted, but the message lives on. Psychono. Bull. Rev. 2013, doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0500-6.
6. The Editors of The Lancet. Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 2010, 375, 445.
7. Flaherty, D.K. The vaccine-autism connection: A public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann. Pharmacother. 2011, 45, 1302–1304.
8. Rennie, D. Proposals concerning the role of journals in preventing fraud and responding to allegations of fraud. In Proceedings of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Report on Workshop Number Three: AAAS-ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academis of Sciences and Engineering, Irvine, CA, USA, 17–18 February 1989; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 187–194.
9. Farthing, M. Research misconduct: An editor’s view. In Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd ed.; Lock, S., Wells, F., Farthing, M., Eds.; BMJ Publishing Group: London, UK, 2001; pp. 244–256.
10. Godlee, F. The ethics of peer review. In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication; Jones, A.H., McLellan, F., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 59–84.
11. Altman, L.K. The Myth of “Passing Peer Review”. In Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication; Bailar, J.C., Council of Biology Editors, Editorial Policy Committee, Eds.; Council of Biology Editors: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1990; pp. 257–268.
12. McLellan, F. Ethics in cyberspace: The challenges of electronic scientific publishing. In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication; Jones, A.H., McLellan, F., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 166–193.
13. Bosch, X.; Hernández, C.; Pericas, J.M.; Doti, P.; Marusic, A. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS One 2012, 7, e51928.
14. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals; August 2013. Available online: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html (accessed on 14 December 2013).
15. Jones, A.H. Changing traditions of authorship. In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication; Jones, A.H., McLellan, F., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 3–29.
16. Cutrone, M.; Grimalt, R. The true and the false: Pixel-byte syndrome. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2001, 18, 523–526.
17. Krueger, J. Incidences of ORI cases involving falsified images. Off. Res. Integr. Newsl. 2009, 17, 2–3.
18. Benos, D.J.; Vollmer, S.H. Generalizing on best practices in image processing: A model for promoting research integrity: Commentary on: Avoiding twisted pixels: Ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2010, 16, 669–673.
19. Cromey, D.W. Avoiding twisted pixels: Ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific Digital Images. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2010, 16, 639–667.
20. Rossner, M.; Yamada, K.M. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. JCB 2004, 166, 11–15.
21. Shelomi, M. Evidence of photo manipulation in a delusional parasitosis paper. J. Parasitol. 2013, 99, 583–585.
22. Sokal, A.D. Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Soc. Text 1996, 14, 217–252.
23. Sokal, A. A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca 1996, 6, 62–64.
24. Robbins, B.; Ross, A. Editorial Response to Sokal Hoax by Editors of Social Text, 1996. Available online: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2013).
25. Epstein, W.M. Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1990, 15, 9–38.
26. Bailar, J.C.; Council of Biology Editors. Editorial Policy Committee. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication; Council of Biology Editors: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1990.
27. Overbye, D. Are They (a) Geniuses or (b) Jokers?; French Physicists’ Cosmic Theory Creates a Big Bang of Its Own. The New York Times, 9 November 2002, p. 7.
28. Bohannon, J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 2013, 342, 60–65.
29. Duiric, D.Z.; Delilbasic, B.; Radisic, S. Evaluation of transformative hermeneutic heuristics for processing random data. Metal. Int. 2013, 18, 98–102.
30. Warda, M.; Han, J. Retracted: Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence. Proteomics 2008, 8, I–XXIII.
31. Randerson, J. How was this paper ever published—Part II. The Guardian, 13 February 2008. Available online: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/feb/13/howwasthispapereverpublis (accessed on 13 December 2013).
32. Salzberg, S.L. Creationism slips into a peer-reviewed journal. Rep. Natl. Center Sci. Educ. 2008, 28, 12–14, 19.
33. Steinberg, G., Steinberg, Diabetes Voice Exchange. In SPME Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, 11 March 2006. Available online: http://spme.org/campus-news-climate/steinberg-diabetes-voice-exchange/900/(accessed on 14 December 2013).
34. Lefèbvre, P.; Silink, M.; Home, P. Editor’s note—An apology. Diabetes Voice 2004, 49, 17.
35. Raz, I. Diabetes under fire. Diabetes Voice 2004, 49, 14–17.
36. Torossian, R. The Lancet: Anti-Israel Bias At Its Finest. Available online: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11385#.UqraQSM7fy8 (accessed on 13 December 2013).
37. The Editorial Office The Games Go On. British medical journals play politics, again. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 14, 82–83.
38. Steinberg, G.M.; Balanson, N. NGO Malpractice: The Political Abuse of Medicine, Morality, and Science; NGO Monitor Monograph Series; Greenberg, A., Ed.; NGO Monitor: Jerusalem, Israel, 2013.
39. Lock, S. Fraud and the editor. In Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research; Lock, S., Wells, F., Eds.; BMJ Publishing Group: London, UK, 1996; pp. 240–256.
40. Lock, S. Lessons from the pearce affair: Handling scientific fraud. BMJ 1995, 310, 1547–1548.
41. Sox, H.C.; Rennie, D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the poehlman case. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006, 144, E7–E11.
42. Retraction of articles. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1995, 102, 853.
43. Budd, J.M.; Sievert, M.; Schultz, T.R. Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998, 280, 296–297.
44. Budd, J.M.; Sievert, M.; Schultz, T.R.; Scoville, C. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 1999, 87, 437–443.
45. Budagian, V.; Bulanova, E.; Orinska, Z.; Thon, L.; Mamat, U.; Bellosta, P.; Basilico, C.; Adam, D.; Paus, R.; Bulfone-Paus, S. A promiscuous liaison between IL-15 receptor and Axl receptor tyrosine kinase in cell death control. EMBO J. 2011, 30, 627–627.
46. Senturk, A.; Pfennig, S.; Weiss, A.; Burk, K.; Acker-Palmer, A. Ephrin Bs are essential components of the Reelin pathway to regulate neuronal migration. Nature 2011, 478, 274.
47. LaFollette, M.C. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992.
48. Deer, B. Revealed: MMR Research Scandal. The Sunday Times, 24 February 2004.
49. Murch, S.H.; Anthony, A.; Casson, D.H.; Malik, M.; Berelowitz, M.; Dhillon, A.P.; Thomson, M.A.; Valentine, A.; Davies, S.E.; Walker-Smith, J.A. Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet 2004, 363, 750.
50. Chen, R.T.; DeStefano, F. Vaccine adverse events: Causal or coincidental? Lancet 1998, 351, 611–612.
51. Fuchs, S.; Westervelt, S.D. Fraud and trust in science. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1996, 39, 248–269.
52. Office of Research Integrity, Papers Affected by Dr. Poehlman’s misconduct. In March 23 ed.; 2005. Available online: http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pubmed_list.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2013).
53. Djuric, D. Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: The romanian connection. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2014, in press.
54. Peterson, G.M. Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A Bibliographic analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 2428–2436.
55. Morgan, P.A. The impact of libel law on retractions. In Proceedings of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Report on Workshop Number Three: AAAS-ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academis of Sciences and Engineering, Irvine, CA, USA, 17–18 February 1989; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 181–185.
56. Montgomerie, B.; Birkhead, T. A beginner’s guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsl. 2005, 17, 16–24.
57. Oransky, I. Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS. In RetractionWatch; Oransky, I., Marcus, A., Eds.; 2012. Available online: http://retractionwatch.com/2012/07/10/science-has-not-asked-for-a-correction-or-retraction-of-arsenic-life-paper-and-why-situation-is-unlike-xmrv-cfs/?relatedposts_exclude=8590 (accessed on 14 December 2013).
58. Applegate, M.W. Maintaining integrity in science without destroying the fabric of science. In Proceedings of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Report on Workshop Number Three: AAAS-ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academis of Sciences and Engineering, Irvine, CA, USA, 17–18 February 1989; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 223–231.
59. Marcus, A.; Oransky, I. Science publishing: The paper is not sacred. Nature 2011, 480, 449–450.
60. Kachewar, S.G.; Sankaye, S.B. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 2013, 11, 274–284.
61. Park, I.U.; Peacey, M.W.; Munafo, M.R. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 2014, 506, 93–96.
62. De Winter, J.; Happee, R. Why selective publication of statistically significant results can be effective. PLoS One 2013, 8, e66463.
63. Hunt, M. A fraud that shook the world of science. N. Y. Times Mag. 1981, 1, 184.
64. Bingham, C. Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing. In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication; Jones, A.H., McLellan, F., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 85–111.
65. Séralini, G.-E.; Clair, E.; Mesnage, R.; Gress, S.; Defarge, N.; Malatesta, M.; Hennequin, D.; Spiroux de Vendômois, J. Retraction notice to “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221–4231]. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2014, 63, 244.