EDITORIAL * EDITORIAL
Error, ignorance and fraud Bruce P. Squires, MD, PhD
A close look at the growth of medical information suggests that it is turbulent and involves rapid production of many, usually imperfect and sometimes disparate, observations and interpretations. However, viewed from a distance the expansion of medical knowledge - indeed, all knowledge - is a plodding process by which observations or discoveries are slowly assimilated into an organized system. Scientific communication and peer review are the essential catalysts of that process. Peer review begins when coworkers debate the significance of their observations and devise new experiments to confirm or refute their hypotheses. From there it goes through informal communication with other investigators to communication and debate at scientific meetings. Ultimately, the resultant manuscript is submitted for publication and formal peer review. Even after publication peer review by readers continues through the journal's correspondence section. The goal of this seemingly endless discussion is simple: truth, at least to the extent that we know it at the time. Major impediments to that search for truth are, I believe, ignorance, error and fraud. I also believe that it can be difficult to tell one from the others. Of course, if discovered, outright fraud is easily distinguishable from ignorance and error because the deception is obviously intentional. Plagiarism or fabrication of data, for example, is a deliberate effort to deceive and is therefore inexcusable. Similarly, publication of the same, or almost the same, article in more than one journal could hardly be judged as unintentional, though I have come across authors who protest that they were ignorant of the rules. Most editors, reviewers and authors understand that the division of results of a study into "least publishable units" - so-called salami science - is a blatant attempt by authors to beef up their curricula vitae. But are deceptions that seem to arise from ignorance or error always unintended? If, for instance, authors cite evidence incorrectly
from a primary source have they simply made an error or are they attempting to deceive their readers? If authors draw unjustifiable conclusions from their data are they merely overzealous in their interpretation, or are they exaggerating the significance of their results so that a funding agency will be more likely to respond favourably to future grant applications? If authors fail to disclose their financial interest in a product or a manufacturer of a product that has been the subject of their manuscript are they simply naive, or are they deliberately concealing the obvious conflict of interest to advance their profit-serving goals? I am not suggesting that authors who have a financial interest in the subject of their research cannot do solid scientific work; however, by not revealing their bias they leave themselves open to accusation. Finally, two situations, although hardly examples of fraud, can be interpreted as being deliberately deceptive and are very annoying because they waste editors' and reviewers' time. The first situation occurs when an author sends a relatively early draft of a manuscript to a journal in the misguided belief that there is no point in trying to improve it further because the editors are going to "mess with it" anyway. The second involves a senior investigator who knows full well that a manuscript prepared by a junior investigator or graduate student will not meet the journal's publication standards but shirks the responsibility for suggesting revisions and submits it in the hopes that the editors will do the job. The same senior investigator invariably howls the loudest when the editor immediately rejects the manuscript without sending it to peer review. Editors do not believe that every error or breach of etiquette in a manuscript is an obvious attempt by authors to deceive the editors and, ultimately, the readers. Most authors, I believe, honestly try to do the best job they can. But editors are human, and once bitten by the suspicion of deception they are twice shy.u
Dr. Squires is editor-in-chief and scientific editor of CMAJ.
Reprint requests to: Dr. Bruce P. Squires, CMAJ, PO Box 8650, Ottawa, Ont. KIG OG8 CAN MEDASSOCJ 1990; 143 (12)
1295
Error, ignorance and fraud Bruce P. Squires, MD, PhD
A close look at the growth of medical information suggests that it is turbulent and involves rapid production of many, usually imperfect and sometimes disparate, observations and interpretations. However, viewed from a distance the expansion of medical knowledge - indeed, all knowledge - is a plodding process by which observations or discoveries are slowly assimilated into an organized system. Scientific communication and peer review are the essential catalysts of that process. Peer review begins when coworkers debate the significance of their observations and devise new experiments to confirm or refute their hypotheses. From there it goes through informal communication with other investigators to communication and debate at scientific meetings. Ultimately, the resultant manuscript is submitted for publication and formal peer review. Even after publication peer review by readers continues through the journal's correspondence section. The goal of this seemingly endless discussion is simple: truth, at least to the extent that we know it at the time. Major impediments to that search for truth are, I believe, ignorance, error and fraud. I also believe that it can be difficult to tell one from the others. Of course, if discovered, outright fraud is easily distinguishable from ignorance and error because the deception is obviously intentional. Plagiarism or fabrication of data, for example, is a deliberate effort to deceive and is therefore inexcusable. Similarly, publication of the same, or almost the same, article in more than one journal could hardly be judged as unintentional, though I have come across authors who protest that they were ignorant of the rules. Most editors, reviewers and authors understand that the division of results of a study into "least publishable units" - so-called salami science - is a blatant attempt by authors to beef up their curricula vitae. But are deceptions that seem to arise from ignorance or error always unintended? If, for instance, authors cite evidence incorrectly
from a primary source have they simply made an error or are they attempting to deceive their readers? If authors draw unjustifiable conclusions from their data are they merely overzealous in their interpretation, or are they exaggerating the significance of their results so that a funding agency will be more likely to respond favourably to future grant applications? If authors fail to disclose their financial interest in a product or a manufacturer of a product that has been the subject of their manuscript are they simply naive, or are they deliberately concealing the obvious conflict of interest to advance their profit-serving goals? I am not suggesting that authors who have a financial interest in the subject of their research cannot do solid scientific work; however, by not revealing their bias they leave themselves open to accusation. Finally, two situations, although hardly examples of fraud, can be interpreted as being deliberately deceptive and are very annoying because they waste editors' and reviewers' time. The first situation occurs when an author sends a relatively early draft of a manuscript to a journal in the misguided belief that there is no point in trying to improve it further because the editors are going to "mess with it" anyway. The second involves a senior investigator who knows full well that a manuscript prepared by a junior investigator or graduate student will not meet the journal's publication standards but shirks the responsibility for suggesting revisions and submits it in the hopes that the editors will do the job. The same senior investigator invariably howls the loudest when the editor immediately rejects the manuscript without sending it to peer review. Editors do not believe that every error or breach of etiquette in a manuscript is an obvious attempt by authors to deceive the editors and, ultimately, the readers. Most authors, I believe, honestly try to do the best job they can. But editors are human, and once bitten by the suspicion of deception they are twice shy.u
Dr. Squires is editor-in-chief and scientific editor of CMAJ.
Reprint requests to: Dr. Bruce P. Squires, CMAJ, PO Box 8650, Ottawa, Ont. KIG OG8 CAN MEDASSOCJ 1990; 143 (12)
1295
