A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Bolland, Mark J ^a   Avenell, Alison ^b   Gamble, Greg D ^a   Buranyi, Stephen ^c   Grey, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c London Center   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Misconduct; Research fraud; Retraction

Indexed keywords

E-MAIL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZATION; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; ELECTRONIC MAIL; JOURNALISM; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85051227953     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3613-1     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Kranke P, Apfel CC, Roewer N, Fujii Y, et al. Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. are incredibly nice! Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1004-7.
2. Yentis SM. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:455-6.
3. Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:521-37.
4. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17028-33.
5. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct. Accessed 23 July 2018.
6. Committee on publication ethics (COPE). Retraction guidelines. 2009. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines-0.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2018.
7. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Gamble GD, Grey A. Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology. 2016;87:2391-402.
8. Gross RA. Statistics and the detection of scientific misconduct. Neurology. 2016;87:2388.
9. Buranyi S. The hi-tech war on science fraud. 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science. Accessed 23 July 2018.
10. Buranyi S. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science. Accessed 23 July 2018.
11. Buranyi S, Devlin H. Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study. 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/05/dozens-of-recent-clinical-trials-contain-wrong-or-falsified-data-claims-study. Accessed 23 July 2018.
12. Koziol M. A shadow was cast on a bone researcher's work. What are journals doing about his papers? 2017. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/25/shadow-cast-bone-researchers-work-journals-papers/. Accessed 23 July 2018.
13. Elia N, Wager E, Tramer MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e85846.