Fraud in publishing

Medical Writing and Research Methodology for the Orthopaedic Surgeon

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 1-8

  Mavrogenis, Andreas F ^a   Panagopoulos, Georgios N ^a   Mauffrey, Cyril ^b   Scarlat, Marius M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

^b DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Department of Orthopaedic Surgery   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85055371783     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69350-7_1     Document Type: Chapter

References (62)

1. Mavrogenis AF, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ. Self-citation in publishing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2803-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8.
2. Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998;352(Suppl 2):SII18-22.
3. Van Noorden R. Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature. 2011;478:26-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a.
4. Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, Sarvas M, Aakvaag A. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National committees on scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet. 1999;354:57-61.
5. Evans S. How common is it? Joint consensus conference on misconduct. Biomed Res. 2000;30(Suppl. 7):1.
6. Promoting integrity in research publication. Norfolk: Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE. http://publicationethics.org. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
7. Office of Research Integrity. Definition of research misconduct. http://ori.hhs.gov/definition- misconduct. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
8. Protti M. Policing fraud and deceit: the legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. J Infor Ethics. 1996;5:59-71.
9. Shapiro MF. Data audit by a regulatory agency: its effect and implication for others. Account Res. 1992;2:219-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989629208573818.
10. Jaffer U, Cameron AE. Deceit and fraud in medical research. Int J Surg. 2006;4:122-6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.02.004.
11. Lock S. Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud. BMJ. 1995;310:1547-8.
12. Brumfiel G. Misconduct finding at bell labs shakes physics community. Nature. 2002;419:419-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/419419a.
13. Brumfiel G. Bell labs launches inquiry into allegations of data duplication. Nature. 2002; 417:367-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/417367a.
14. Grant P. Is a bell tolling for bell labs? Nature. 2002;417:789. https://doi.org/10.1038/417789a.
15. Service RF. Scientific misconduct. Bell labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science. 2002;298:30-1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5591.30.
16. Service RF. Bell labs. Winning streak brought awe, and then doubt. Science. 2002;297:34-7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.297.5578.34.
17. Thompson NP, Montgomery SM, Pounder RE, Wakefield AJ. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Lancet. 1995;345:1071-4.
18. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637-41.
19. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452.
20. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Med. 2012;20:208-13. https://doi. org/10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213.
21. ORI policy on plagiarism. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
22. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it. Mater Soc. 2014;26:141-6. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2014.26.141-146.
23. Garfield E (2002) Demand citation vigilance. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/ demandcitationvigilance012102.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2015.
24. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968;159:56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
25. Kern SE. Whose hypothesis? Ciphering, sectorials, D lesions, freckles and the operation of Stigler's law. Cancer Biol Ther. 2002;1:571-81.
26. Alsabti EAK. Massachusetts v. Alsabti. Science. 1989;245:1046. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1046-c.
27. Broad WJ. Charges of piracy follow alsabti. Science. 1980;210:291. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.210.4467.291.
28. Broad W, Wade N. Betrayers of the truth. In: Touchstone book. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1983.
29. Miller DJ, Hersen M. Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences. New York, N.Y: Wiley; 1992.
30. Bonnet F, Samama CM. Cases of fraud in publications: from Darsee to Poldermans. Presse Med. 2012;41:816-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2012.04.019.
31. Kochan CA, Budd JM. The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1992;43:488-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<488:: AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-7.
32. Relman AS. Lessons from the Darsee affair. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:1415-7. https://doi. org/10.1056/NEJM198306093082311.
33. Tynan M, Anderson RH. Different lessons from the Darsee affair? Int J Cardiol. 1984;5:9-11.
34. Pontille D, Torny D. Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2012;60:247-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respe.2012.06.395.
35. Kempers RD. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:883-8.
36. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat Res. 2005;589:31-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.002.
37. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res. 2005;589:17-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.
38. Parrish D, Noonan B. Image manipulation as research misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009;15:161-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9108-z.
39. Martin C, Blatt M. Manipulation and misconduct in the handling of image data. Plant Cell. 2013;25:3147-8. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.113.250980.
40. Hollyfield JG. Manuscript fabrication, image manipulation and plagiarism. Exp Eye Res. 2012;94:1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2011.10.009.
41. Couzin-Frankel J. Image manipulation. Author of popular blog that charged fraud unmasked. Science. 2013;339:132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.339.6116.132.
42. Astaneh B, Masoumi S. Image manipulation; how far is too far. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013; 63:929-30.
43. Katolab image-fraud. http://katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/dna-demethylation- in-hormone-induced.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2015.
44. Alleged image fraud by Shigeaki Kato lab at the University of Tokyo (Alleged research misconduct). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXaOqwanWnU. Accessed 13 Sept 2015.
45. Rogers LF. Salami slicing, shotgunning, and the ethics of authorship. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:265. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430115.
46. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:499-504.
47. Broad WJ. The publishing game: getting more for less. Science. 1981;211:1137-9.
48. Jackson D, Walter G, Daly J, Cleary M. Editorial: multiple outputs from single studies: acceptable division of findings vs. 'salami' slicing. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1-2). https://doi. org/10.1111/jocn.12439.
49. Klein AA, Pozniak A, Pandit JJ. Salami slicing or living off the fat? Justifying multiple publications from a single HIV dataset. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:195-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ anae.12603.
50. Norman G. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8.
51. Pierson CA. Salami slicing--how thin is the slice? J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2015;27:65. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12210.
52. Supak Smolcic V. Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochem Med. 2013;23:237-41.
53. Netland PA. Ethical authorship and the Ingelfinger rule in the digital age. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1111-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.013.
54. Harnad S. Ingelfinger over-ruled. Lancet. 2000;356:s16.
55. Germenis AE. Beyond the Ingelfinger rule: the intellectual property ethics after the end of biomedical journals' monopoly. Med Inform Internet Med. 1999;24:165-70.
56. Falagas ME, Alexiou VG. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2008;56:223-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5.
57. Kirchhof B, Bornfeld N, Grehn F. The delicate topic of the impact factor Graefe's. Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:925-7.
58. Cash-per-publication. Nature. 2006;441:786. https://doi.org/10.1038/441786a.
59. PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.
60. Whitehouse GH. Impact factors: facts and myths. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:715-7. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00330-001-1212-2.
61. Schutte HK, Svec JG. Reaction of folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend ofimpact factor measures. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2007;59:281-5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000108334.
62. Foo JY. Impact of excessive journal self-citations: a case study on the folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica journal. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:65-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9177-7.