Original Article
Publication ethics Ritesh G Menezes1, Smith Giri2, Sadip Pant3, Magdy A Kharoshah4, Mohammed Madadin1 and Sharath Burugina Nagaraja5
Medico-Legal Journal 2014, Vol. 82(4) 155–158 ! The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0025817214526524 mlj.sagepub.com
Abstract High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship. These problems are discussed in this article.
Keywords Publication ethics, scientific literature, publication misconduct
Introduction Academic publication is the cornerstone of scientific progress. Authorship of quality scientific literature is highly regarded among physicians and academics generally.1 However, powerful intellectual, financial and political interests may be involved in academic publication, which potentially can distort scientific literature.2 This can result in plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship.3
Plagiarism The term plagiarism denotes intentional or unintentional borrowing of ideas or words of others without giving appropriate credit.4 As per the World Association of Medical Editors, plagiarism occurs when six consecutive words are copied, or 7 to 11 words are overlapping in a set of 30 letters.5 Although plagiarism is considered as a violation of the contemporary codes of publication ethics, it is rampant and a growing menace in the present academic world of literature.6 Plagiarism can be of several types. Plagiarism of ideas may occur when an author presents someone else’s ideas, thoughts or inventions as his own without giving appropriate credit.7 This is very difficult to detect as the scripts from the original paper are not directly reproduced. Plagiarism of text also known as word-for-word plagiarism is the complete or partial copying of words without credit to its author.8 With the advancement of
technology and the digitalisation of medical literature, this is increasingly common.7 The third type of plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, is perhaps more common: authors copy ideas and sentences from an original source and admix it with a few words of their own here and there.5 This practice is unethical when the original author is not acknowledged and the reference is not cited appropriately. Self-plagiarism is another form of plagiarism which refers to the reuse of author’s own previous work without appropriate quotation and permission to reproduce text from the copyright holder.5 Avoiding simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to two or more journals and waiting to hear from the editor of one journal before submitting the manuscript to another is best practice.9,10 Generally, an author has to confirm at the time of submission that the manuscript has been submitted solely to that journal and is not published, or in press. 1 College of Medicine, King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, USA 3 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA 4 Forensic Medicine Authority, Ministry of Justice, Cairo, Egypt 5 Department of Community Medicine, ESIC Medical College & PGIMSR, Bangalore, India
Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Ritesh G Menezes, College of Medicine, King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia (KSA). Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
156
Medico-Legal Journal 82(4)
Data fabrication and falsification Data fabrication and falsification are serious forms of scientific misconduct.11 Data fabrication involves invention of data or cases while data falsification is the intentional distortion of data or the results.12 An infamous example of data fabrication is the cloning scandal involving the Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang. Dr. Hwang published two successive papers in Science in 2004 and 2005 about the development of pluripotent stem cells from human blastocyst.13,14 As a result of his papers, Dr. Hwang quickly became an international celebrity. However, investigations revealed that both of his papers were based on fraudulent data.15 His papers were both retracted, and he was fired from his post as a professor at Seoul National University.16 Data falsification is probably more common. Scientific results can be distorted to show a statistically significant result to meet the expected outcome of a study. A study can be selectively published only when it meets the researchers’ expectations.11 Fanneli’s metaanalysis revealed that about 2% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results at least once.11 The actual frequency of scientific misconduct could be higher than this.11 Clearly, scientific misconducts of this kind impact detrimentally on the scientific and the wider community.17
Redundant publication Redundant publication involves the publication of the same work more than once in the same or different languages without acknowledging the original source. Two papers need not be identical: there could be sharing or substantial overlapping of data and the presentation of similar findings.18 Redundant publication creates several problems in the scientific community. It can distort the scientific literature by showing the same scientific observation more than once, inflating its occurrence which could impact subsequent observations such as meta-analyses and reviews.19 It can violate copyright law. There is also waste of time and effort of journal editors and reviewers.19 A few years ago, as one of the Founder Editors of a Forensic Medicine-related journal based in South India, the first author came across a submission that was already published in another journal of the same specialty also based in India. A timely editorial review and discovery prevented the manuscript from being forwarded to external peer reviewers and the possibility of redundant publication thereafter. The author in this case had disguised the second manuscript with a different title. In another instance, a manuscript that had already been accepted after peer review was requested to be withdrawn by the authors. Although reluctant to begin with, the decision of the authors was respected by
the Journal and within the next couple of months the same article appeared in press (Epub ahead of print) at a UK-based journal website with a few modifications probably influenced by the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments. The authors from North India had submitted the article to both the journals of the same specialty, one based in India and the other in UK on the same date. An analysis of Medline retractions by Wager and Williams20 revealed that 17% of the retractions were for redundant publication. Following publication, the redundant manuscript which overlaps with the first manuscript is retracted or withdrawn to correct the published record, and a retraction notice is published by the publisher or the editor.21,22 Some authors would argue that their article is not redundant but the editors’ view is different.23–28 We consider the wilful and deliberate practice of redundant publication by the same authors as an ‘‘academic perversion’’ that needs to be strongly criticised by the scientific community.
Authorship An important area of scientific misconduct relates to authorship, which is generally conferred upon individuals who make significant intellectual contributions to a published study and who are responsible for the content of a study.29–32 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that any author of a scientific publication should meet all of the following criteria33: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. 2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. 3. Final approval of the version to be published. The Council of Scientific Editors describes a range of authorship misconducts that includes honorary or gift authorship and ghost authorship.33 The practice of offering authorship to individuals who have made no or an insignificant contribution to a manuscript is often referred to as honorary or gift authorship.34 This may be due to coercion from a senior colleague, or in an attempt to boost the chances of publication by including a renowned figure as a co-author.35 The observations of a survey of researchers in French clinical settings showed that 59% of the researchers had been a recipient of gift authorship.36 On the other hand, ghost authorship involves an undisclosed conflict of interest where a pharmaceutical industry employee or contractor co-authors a study but is not listed as an author in the publication.37 The French survey
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
Menezes et al.
157
showed that 64% of the researchers were aware of ghost authorship.36
Discussion Science journal editors have a significant role in protecting the quality of scientific literature. Many journals have clear publication policies to ensure that publication misconducts are avoided.2,38 Most journals require the authors to declare that the work submitted is original and not being considered elsewhere for publication and has not been published before. Journals also use a variety of plagiarism detection tools to ensure the originality of a submitted manuscript.39 To avoid illegitimate authorship, journals should require authors to declare in some form that everyone listed meets the criteria. Many journals ask for a declaration of each author’s contribution to the research which makes misleading claims less likely. The more serious forms of misconduct (data fabrication and falsification) are usually suspected by the reviewers during the peer review process. Such events should be reported to the concerned authorities for necessary investigation.
Conclusion In conclusion, publication misconduct is very common. It is the responsibility of journal editors, reviewers, readers and most importantly authors to make sure that this is kept to a bare minimum so that scientific literature is reliable and trustworthy. Continuing publication education is needed. Acknowledgements None.
Declarations Competing interests None declared.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical approval Not applicable.
Guarantor SG.
Contributorship RGM, SG, SP and MAK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RGM, SG, MM and SBN researched the literature and
conceived the manuscript. All the authors reviewed and revised the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript. RGM and SG made equal contributions. This manuscript is an off-shoot of an invited presentation made by RGM at the 2012 Karnataka MedicoLegal Society Annual Pre-Conference Continuing Medical Education Academic Programme in Bangalore, India.
References 1. Giri S, Pant S, Kharoshah MA, et al. Being an author. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2012; 2: 115–116. 2. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2007; 61(s152): 1–26. 3. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348–353. 4. Habibzadeh F and Shashok K. Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas? Croat Med J 2011; 52: 576–577. 5. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Med 2012; 20: 208–213. 6. Menezes RG, Pant S, Nagesh KR, et al. Plagiarism revisited: the difference between a painter and a copier. J South India Medicoleg Assoc 2012; 4: 1–2. 7. Das N and Panjabi M. Plagiarism: why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2: 67–71. 8. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. 2003, http://facpub.stjohns.edu/roigm/plagiarism/ Index.html (accessed 25 May 2013). 9. Kanchan T, Menezes RG and Hunnargi SA. Self-plagiarized identical publication: mockery of science and a form of reader abuse. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2009; 30: 217. 10. Kanchan T, Menezes RG and Kalthur SG. Unintentional self-plagiarism. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2010; 31: e10. 11. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009; 4: e5738. 12. Lafollette MC. The evolution of the ‘‘scientific misconduct’’ issue: an historical overview. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 2000; 224: 211–215. 13. Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, et al. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 2005; 308: 1777–1783. 14. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 2004; 303: 1669–1674. 15. Hee CM. Summary of the final report on Professor Woo Suk Hwang’s research allegations by Seoul National University Investigation Committee. 2006, http://www. useoul.edu/snunews?bm¼v&bbsidx¼71497&page¼65 (accessed 25 May 2013). 16. Saunders R and Savulescu J. Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 214–221.
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
158
Medico-Legal Journal 82(4)
17. Resnik DB and Dinse GE. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 46–50. 18. Hennessey KK, Williams AR, Afshar K, et al. Duplicate publications: a sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Can Urol Assoc 2012; 6: 177–180. 19. The Editorial Policy Committee of the Council of Science Editors. Redundant Publication. CBE Views 1996; 19: 2. 20. Wager E and Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 567–570. 21. Notice of redundant publication. Br J Sports Med 2007; 41: 184. 22. Retraction. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 2536. 23. Aksoz T, Akan H, Celebi M, et al. Does the oropharyngeal fat tissue influence the oropharyngeal airway in snorers? Dynamic CT study. Korean J Radiol 2004; 5: 102–106. 24. Akan H, Aksoz T, Belet U, et al. Dynamic upper airway soft-tissue and caliber changes in healthy subjects and snoring patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25: 1846–1850. 25. Notice of retraction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1624. 26. Choi BI and Lee KS. Retraction of redundant publication. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841. 27. Akan H. Reply. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841. 28. Castillo M. Editor’s comment on redundant and duplicate articles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841–1842.
29. Bavdekar SB. Authorship issues. Lung India 2012; 29: 76–80. 30. Menezes RG, Kanchan T, Arun M, et al. Authorship: an ethical issue. Natl Med J India 2006; 19: 111–112. 31. Menezes RG, Sharma PS, Manipady S, et al. Order of authorship. Curr Sci 2006; 91: 736. 32. Zaki SA, Taqi SA, Sami LB, et al. Ethical guidelines on authorship. Indian J Dent Res 2012; 23: 292. 33. Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. 2013, http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/ index.cfm?pageid¼3638#221 (accessed 5 June 2013). 34. Kanchan T and Menezes RG. Gift authorship. Curr Sci 2010; 98: 9–10. 35. Greenland P and Fontanarosa PB. Ending honorary authorship. Science 2012; 337: 1019. 36. Pignatelli B, Maisonneuve H and Chapuis F. Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 578–581. 37. Lacasse JR, Leo J, Cimino AN, et al. Knowledge of undisclosed corporate authorship (‘‘ghostwriting’’) reduces the perceived credibility of antidepressant research: a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5: 490. 38. Callaham ML. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication. Ann Emerg Med 2003; 41: 82–89. 39. Bazdaric K. Plagiarism detection: quality management tool for all scientific journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53: 1–3.
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
Publication ethics Ritesh G Menezes1, Smith Giri2, Sadip Pant3, Magdy A Kharoshah4, Mohammed Madadin1 and Sharath Burugina Nagaraja5
Medico-Legal Journal 2014, Vol. 82(4) 155–158 ! The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0025817214526524 mlj.sagepub.com
Abstract High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship. These problems are discussed in this article.
Keywords Publication ethics, scientific literature, publication misconduct
Introduction Academic publication is the cornerstone of scientific progress. Authorship of quality scientific literature is highly regarded among physicians and academics generally.1 However, powerful intellectual, financial and political interests may be involved in academic publication, which potentially can distort scientific literature.2 This can result in plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship.3
Plagiarism The term plagiarism denotes intentional or unintentional borrowing of ideas or words of others without giving appropriate credit.4 As per the World Association of Medical Editors, plagiarism occurs when six consecutive words are copied, or 7 to 11 words are overlapping in a set of 30 letters.5 Although plagiarism is considered as a violation of the contemporary codes of publication ethics, it is rampant and a growing menace in the present academic world of literature.6 Plagiarism can be of several types. Plagiarism of ideas may occur when an author presents someone else’s ideas, thoughts or inventions as his own without giving appropriate credit.7 This is very difficult to detect as the scripts from the original paper are not directly reproduced. Plagiarism of text also known as word-for-word plagiarism is the complete or partial copying of words without credit to its author.8 With the advancement of
technology and the digitalisation of medical literature, this is increasingly common.7 The third type of plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, is perhaps more common: authors copy ideas and sentences from an original source and admix it with a few words of their own here and there.5 This practice is unethical when the original author is not acknowledged and the reference is not cited appropriately. Self-plagiarism is another form of plagiarism which refers to the reuse of author’s own previous work without appropriate quotation and permission to reproduce text from the copyright holder.5 Avoiding simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to two or more journals and waiting to hear from the editor of one journal before submitting the manuscript to another is best practice.9,10 Generally, an author has to confirm at the time of submission that the manuscript has been submitted solely to that journal and is not published, or in press. 1 College of Medicine, King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, USA 3 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA 4 Forensic Medicine Authority, Ministry of Justice, Cairo, Egypt 5 Department of Community Medicine, ESIC Medical College & PGIMSR, Bangalore, India
Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Ritesh G Menezes, College of Medicine, King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia (KSA). Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
156
Medico-Legal Journal 82(4)
Data fabrication and falsification Data fabrication and falsification are serious forms of scientific misconduct.11 Data fabrication involves invention of data or cases while data falsification is the intentional distortion of data or the results.12 An infamous example of data fabrication is the cloning scandal involving the Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang. Dr. Hwang published two successive papers in Science in 2004 and 2005 about the development of pluripotent stem cells from human blastocyst.13,14 As a result of his papers, Dr. Hwang quickly became an international celebrity. However, investigations revealed that both of his papers were based on fraudulent data.15 His papers were both retracted, and he was fired from his post as a professor at Seoul National University.16 Data falsification is probably more common. Scientific results can be distorted to show a statistically significant result to meet the expected outcome of a study. A study can be selectively published only when it meets the researchers’ expectations.11 Fanneli’s metaanalysis revealed that about 2% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results at least once.11 The actual frequency of scientific misconduct could be higher than this.11 Clearly, scientific misconducts of this kind impact detrimentally on the scientific and the wider community.17
Redundant publication Redundant publication involves the publication of the same work more than once in the same or different languages without acknowledging the original source. Two papers need not be identical: there could be sharing or substantial overlapping of data and the presentation of similar findings.18 Redundant publication creates several problems in the scientific community. It can distort the scientific literature by showing the same scientific observation more than once, inflating its occurrence which could impact subsequent observations such as meta-analyses and reviews.19 It can violate copyright law. There is also waste of time and effort of journal editors and reviewers.19 A few years ago, as one of the Founder Editors of a Forensic Medicine-related journal based in South India, the first author came across a submission that was already published in another journal of the same specialty also based in India. A timely editorial review and discovery prevented the manuscript from being forwarded to external peer reviewers and the possibility of redundant publication thereafter. The author in this case had disguised the second manuscript with a different title. In another instance, a manuscript that had already been accepted after peer review was requested to be withdrawn by the authors. Although reluctant to begin with, the decision of the authors was respected by
the Journal and within the next couple of months the same article appeared in press (Epub ahead of print) at a UK-based journal website with a few modifications probably influenced by the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments. The authors from North India had submitted the article to both the journals of the same specialty, one based in India and the other in UK on the same date. An analysis of Medline retractions by Wager and Williams20 revealed that 17% of the retractions were for redundant publication. Following publication, the redundant manuscript which overlaps with the first manuscript is retracted or withdrawn to correct the published record, and a retraction notice is published by the publisher or the editor.21,22 Some authors would argue that their article is not redundant but the editors’ view is different.23–28 We consider the wilful and deliberate practice of redundant publication by the same authors as an ‘‘academic perversion’’ that needs to be strongly criticised by the scientific community.
Authorship An important area of scientific misconduct relates to authorship, which is generally conferred upon individuals who make significant intellectual contributions to a published study and who are responsible for the content of a study.29–32 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that any author of a scientific publication should meet all of the following criteria33: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. 2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. 3. Final approval of the version to be published. The Council of Scientific Editors describes a range of authorship misconducts that includes honorary or gift authorship and ghost authorship.33 The practice of offering authorship to individuals who have made no or an insignificant contribution to a manuscript is often referred to as honorary or gift authorship.34 This may be due to coercion from a senior colleague, or in an attempt to boost the chances of publication by including a renowned figure as a co-author.35 The observations of a survey of researchers in French clinical settings showed that 59% of the researchers had been a recipient of gift authorship.36 On the other hand, ghost authorship involves an undisclosed conflict of interest where a pharmaceutical industry employee or contractor co-authors a study but is not listed as an author in the publication.37 The French survey
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
Menezes et al.
157
showed that 64% of the researchers were aware of ghost authorship.36
Discussion Science journal editors have a significant role in protecting the quality of scientific literature. Many journals have clear publication policies to ensure that publication misconducts are avoided.2,38 Most journals require the authors to declare that the work submitted is original and not being considered elsewhere for publication and has not been published before. Journals also use a variety of plagiarism detection tools to ensure the originality of a submitted manuscript.39 To avoid illegitimate authorship, journals should require authors to declare in some form that everyone listed meets the criteria. Many journals ask for a declaration of each author’s contribution to the research which makes misleading claims less likely. The more serious forms of misconduct (data fabrication and falsification) are usually suspected by the reviewers during the peer review process. Such events should be reported to the concerned authorities for necessary investigation.
Conclusion In conclusion, publication misconduct is very common. It is the responsibility of journal editors, reviewers, readers and most importantly authors to make sure that this is kept to a bare minimum so that scientific literature is reliable and trustworthy. Continuing publication education is needed. Acknowledgements None.
Declarations Competing interests None declared.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical approval Not applicable.
Guarantor SG.
Contributorship RGM, SG, SP and MAK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RGM, SG, MM and SBN researched the literature and
conceived the manuscript. All the authors reviewed and revised the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript. RGM and SG made equal contributions. This manuscript is an off-shoot of an invited presentation made by RGM at the 2012 Karnataka MedicoLegal Society Annual Pre-Conference Continuing Medical Education Academic Programme in Bangalore, India.
References 1. Giri S, Pant S, Kharoshah MA, et al. Being an author. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2012; 2: 115–116. 2. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2007; 61(s152): 1–26. 3. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348–353. 4. Habibzadeh F and Shashok K. Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas? Croat Med J 2011; 52: 576–577. 5. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Med 2012; 20: 208–213. 6. Menezes RG, Pant S, Nagesh KR, et al. Plagiarism revisited: the difference between a painter and a copier. J South India Medicoleg Assoc 2012; 4: 1–2. 7. Das N and Panjabi M. Plagiarism: why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2: 67–71. 8. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. 2003, http://facpub.stjohns.edu/roigm/plagiarism/ Index.html (accessed 25 May 2013). 9. Kanchan T, Menezes RG and Hunnargi SA. Self-plagiarized identical publication: mockery of science and a form of reader abuse. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2009; 30: 217. 10. Kanchan T, Menezes RG and Kalthur SG. Unintentional self-plagiarism. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2010; 31: e10. 11. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009; 4: e5738. 12. Lafollette MC. The evolution of the ‘‘scientific misconduct’’ issue: an historical overview. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 2000; 224: 211–215. 13. Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, et al. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 2005; 308: 1777–1783. 14. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 2004; 303: 1669–1674. 15. Hee CM. Summary of the final report on Professor Woo Suk Hwang’s research allegations by Seoul National University Investigation Committee. 2006, http://www. useoul.edu/snunews?bm¼v&bbsidx¼71497&page¼65 (accessed 25 May 2013). 16. Saunders R and Savulescu J. Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 214–221.
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
158
Medico-Legal Journal 82(4)
17. Resnik DB and Dinse GE. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 46–50. 18. Hennessey KK, Williams AR, Afshar K, et al. Duplicate publications: a sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Can Urol Assoc 2012; 6: 177–180. 19. The Editorial Policy Committee of the Council of Science Editors. Redundant Publication. CBE Views 1996; 19: 2. 20. Wager E and Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 567–570. 21. Notice of redundant publication. Br J Sports Med 2007; 41: 184. 22. Retraction. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 2536. 23. Aksoz T, Akan H, Celebi M, et al. Does the oropharyngeal fat tissue influence the oropharyngeal airway in snorers? Dynamic CT study. Korean J Radiol 2004; 5: 102–106. 24. Akan H, Aksoz T, Belet U, et al. Dynamic upper airway soft-tissue and caliber changes in healthy subjects and snoring patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25: 1846–1850. 25. Notice of retraction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1624. 26. Choi BI and Lee KS. Retraction of redundant publication. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841. 27. Akan H. Reply. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841. 28. Castillo M. Editor’s comment on redundant and duplicate articles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1841–1842.
29. Bavdekar SB. Authorship issues. Lung India 2012; 29: 76–80. 30. Menezes RG, Kanchan T, Arun M, et al. Authorship: an ethical issue. Natl Med J India 2006; 19: 111–112. 31. Menezes RG, Sharma PS, Manipady S, et al. Order of authorship. Curr Sci 2006; 91: 736. 32. Zaki SA, Taqi SA, Sami LB, et al. Ethical guidelines on authorship. Indian J Dent Res 2012; 23: 292. 33. Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. 2013, http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/ index.cfm?pageid¼3638#221 (accessed 5 June 2013). 34. Kanchan T and Menezes RG. Gift authorship. Curr Sci 2010; 98: 9–10. 35. Greenland P and Fontanarosa PB. Ending honorary authorship. Science 2012; 337: 1019. 36. Pignatelli B, Maisonneuve H and Chapuis F. Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 578–581. 37. Lacasse JR, Leo J, Cimino AN, et al. Knowledge of undisclosed corporate authorship (‘‘ghostwriting’’) reduces the perceived credibility of antidepressant research: a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5: 490. 38. Callaham ML. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication. Ann Emerg Med 2003; 41: 82–89. 39. Bazdaric K. Plagiarism detection: quality management tool for all scientific journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53: 1–3.
Downloaded from mlj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on July 9, 2015
