Article information
Abstract
Introduction
Editors of scientific publications have, traditionally, been unaware of frauds and misconduct, being more concerned with subjects associated to impact or with editorial review. But, in the last few years they have been checking and reporting that there is misconduct in the scientific field, and furthermore, it is not uncommon.
MethodThe most common misconduct of authors is reviewed. These are seen as an infringement of the conditions that a scientific work must have, and include fraud, such as plagiarism, repeated publications or redundant publications. Their frequency and the perspectives from a publishing point of view are discussed.
ConclusionsMany editors are demanding clear regulations to prevent misconduct. Editorial review and the provision of evaluation tools for reviewers are prevention, but not infallible formulas. What is most important could be that editorial teams be aware of its existence.
Keywords:
Misconduct
Plagiarism
Fraud
Redundant publications
Editorial review
Resumen
Introducción
Los editores de revistas científicas han sido, tradicionalmente, poco conscientes de la existencia de fraudes y conductas inapropiadas, más preocupados por los temas relacionados con el impacto o con la revisión editorial, pero en los últimos años, se ha ido comprobando y denunciando que existen comportamientos inadecuados en el ámbito científico y que además no son infrecuentes.
DesarrolloSe revisan las conductas inapropiadas de autores más frecuentes que suponen una vulneración de las condiciones que debe tener un trabajo científico e incluyen fraudes como el plagio, las publicaciones repetidas o las publicaciones redundantes. Se discute su frecuencia y las perspectivas desde la edición.
ConclusionesMuchos editores están reclamando regulaciones claras para prevenir las conductas inapropiadas. La revisión editorial y facilitar herramientas de evaluación para los revisores son fórmulas de prevención, pero no infalibles. Lo destacable puede ser que los equipos editoriales tomen consciencia de su existencia.
Palabras clave:
Conductas inapropiadas
Plagio
Fraude
Publicaciones repetidas
Revisión editorial
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
E. Wager, S. Fiack, C. Graf, A. Robinson, I. Rowlands.
Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
J Med Ethics, 35 (2009), pp. 348-353
[2.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El factor de impacto y las decisiones editoriales.
Neurología, 23 (2008), pp. 342-348
[3.]
Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R. El proceso de mejora y decisión de un artículo. Neurología. 2009. In press.
[4.]
B.C. Martinson, M.S. Anderson, R. De Vries.
Scientists behaving badly.
Nature, 435 (2005), pp. 737-738
[5.]
M. Errami, J.M. Hicks, W. Fisher, D. Trusty, J.D. Wren, T.C. Long, et al.
Déjà vu: a study of duplicate citations in MEDLINE.
Bioinformatics, 24 (2008), pp. 243-249
[6.]
D. Federman, A. Mutgi.
Redundant publication?.
N Engl J Med, 327 (1992), pp. 1316
[7.]
J. Lau, E. Antman, T. Chalmers.
Redundant publication?: the authors reply.
N Engl J Med, 327 (1992), pp. 1316
[8.]
J. Kassirer.
Redundant publication?: editor's reply.
Engl J N Med, 327 (1992), pp. 1316
[10.]
S.G. Clouthier.
Misconduct: lower ranks take most of the blame.
Nature, 436 (2005), pp. 460
[11.]
L.P. Breitling.
Misconduct: pressure to achieve corrodes ideals.
Nature, 436 (2005), pp. 626
[12.]
F. Grinnell.
Misconduct: acceptable practices differ by field.
Nature, 436 (2005), pp. 776
[13.]
S. Lehmann, A.D. Jackson, B.E. Lautrup.
Measures for measures.
Nature, 444 (2006), pp. 1003-1004
[14.]
M. Doherty.
The misconduct of redundant publication.
Ann Rheum Dis, 55 (1996), pp. 783-785
[15.]
T. Ready.
Plagiarize or perish.
Nat Med, 12 (2006), pp. 494
[16.]
J. Couzin, K. Unger.
Cleaning up the paper trail.
Science, 312 (2006), pp. 38-43
[17.]
E. Marris.
Should journals police scientific fraud?.
Nature, 439 (2006), pp. 520-521
[18.]
R. Smith.
Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author.
BMJ, 331 (2005), pp. 288-291
[20.]
D.S. Reeves, R. Wise, C.W.E. Drummond.
Duplicate publication: a cautionary tale.
J Antimicrob Chemother, 53 (2004), pp. 411-412
[21.]
C. DeAngelis.
Duplicate publication, multiple problems.
JAMA, 292 (2004), pp. 1745-1746
[23.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Autor y autoría en las publicaciones médicas.
Neurología, 24 (2009), pp. 1-6
[24.]
D. Rennie, A. Flanagin.
Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin.
JAMA, 271 (1994), pp. 469-471
[25.]
A. Newman, R. Jones.
Authorship of research papers: ethical and professional issues for short-term researchers.
J Med Ethics, 32 (2006), pp. 420-423
[26.]
R. Lazar.
Real writers vs. listed authors: an ethical problem [editorial].
J Dent Res, 74 (1995), pp. 1244-1245
[27.]
B. Pignatelli, H. Maisonneuve, F. Chapuis.
Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings.
J Med Ethics, 31 (2005), pp. 578-581
[28.]
J.S. Ross, K.P. Hill, D.S. Egilman, H.M. Krumholz.
Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1800-1812
[29.]
M. Lagnado.
Increasing the trust in scientific authorship.
Br J Psychiatry, 183 (2003), pp. 3-4
[30.]
M. Errami, H. Garner.
Tale of two citations.
Nature, 451 (2008), pp. 397-399
[31.]
G.D. Lundberg.
Statement by the international committee of medical journal editors on duplicate or redundant publication.
JAMA, 270 (1993), pp. 2495
[32.]
M. Angell, A.S. Relman.
Redundant publication.
N Engl J Med, 320 (1989), pp. 1212-1214
[33.]
B.J. Bailey.
Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngologyhead and neck surgery.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 126 (2002), pp. 211-216
[34.]
S.S. Blancett, A. Flanagin, R.K. Young.
Duplicate publication in the nursing literature.
Image J Nurs Sch, 27 (1995), pp. 51-56
[35.]
M. Schein, R. Paladugu.
Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg?.
Surgery, 129 (2001), pp. 655-661
[37.]
M. Bhandari, V. Patenall, P.J. Devereaux, P. Tornetta, D. Dirschl, P. Leece, et al.
An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.
Can J Surg, 48 (2005), pp. 117-122
[38.]
M. Schein, R. Paladugu.
Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?.
Surgery, 129 (2001), pp. 655-661
[39.]
L. Bornmann, H.D. Daniel.
Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine.
J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 58 (2007), pp. 1100-1107
[40.]
P.C. Gøtzsche.
Multiple publication of reports of drug trials.
Eur J Clin Pharm, 36 (1989), pp. 429-432
[41.]
P. Huston, D. Moher.
Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research.
Lancet, 34 (1996), pp. 1024-1026
[42.]
A. Leizorovicz, M.C. Haugh, J.P. Boissel.
Meta-analysis and multiple publication of clinical reports.
Lancet, 340 (1992), pp. 1102-1103
[43.]
D. Rennie.
Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical trials.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1766-1768
[44.]
S.M. Mojon-Azzi, X. Jiang, U. Wagner, D.S. Mojon.
Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Nature, 421 (2003), pp. 209
[45.]
M.R. Tramer, J.M. Reynols, R.A. Moore, H.J. Mc Quay.
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 635-640
[46.]
E. Von Elm, G. Poglia, B. Walder, M.R. Tramèr.
Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews.
JAMA, 291 (2004), pp. 974-980
[47.]
L.A. Bero, A. Galbraith, D. Rennie.
The publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals.
N Engl J Med, 327 (1992), pp. 1135-1140
[48.]
P.A. Rochon, J.H. Gurwitz, M. Cheung, J.A. Hayes, T.C. Chalmers.
Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 108-113
[49.]
J. Kaiser.
Scientific publishing. MEDLINE supplements must list corporate ties.
Science, 314 (2006), pp. 405
[50.]
W.J. Broad.
The publishing game: getting more for less.
Science, 211 (1981), pp. 1137-1139
[51.]
E.J. Huth.
Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication.
Ann Intern Med, 104 (1986), pp. 257-259
[52.]
T. Jefferson.
Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: scientific misconduct or necessity?.
Sci Eng Ethics, 4 (1998), pp. 135-140
[53.]
I. Taylor.
Academia's “misconduct” is acceptable to industry.
Nature, 436 (2005), pp. 626
[54.]
V. Yank, D. Barnes.
Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors.
J Med Ethics, 29 (2003), pp. 109-114
[55.]
H.L. Rittner, P. Kranke, M. Schäfer, N. Roewer, A. Brack.
What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case?: Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology.
Anaesthesist, 10 (2009), pp. 1637-1646
[56.]
J.H. Schön, S. Berg, C.H. Kloc, B. Batlogg.
Ambipolar pentacene field-effect transistors and inverters.
Science, 287 (2000), pp. 1022
[57.]
R.F. Service.
Scientific misconduct –More of Bell Labs physicist's papers retracted.
Science, 299 (2003), pp. 31
[58.]
R. Saunders, J. Savulescu.
Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?.
J Med Ethics, 34 (2008), pp. 214-221
[59.]
E. Marshall.
Scientific misconduct - How prevalent is fraud? That's a million-dollar question.
Science, 290 (2000), pp. 1662-1663
[60.]
B.K. Sovacool.
Exploring scientific misconduct: isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science?.
J Bioethic Inquiry, 5 (2008), pp. 271-282
[61.]
E. Fanelli.
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
PLoS ONE, 4 (2009), pp. e5738
[62.]
M. Roig.
Re-using text from one's own previously published papers: an exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism.
Psychol Rep, 97 (2005), pp. 43-49
[63.]
E. Marris.
Should journals police scientific fraud?.
Nature, 439 (2006), pp. 520-521
[64.]
S.L. Titus, J.A. Wells, L.J. Rhoades.
Repairing research integrity.
Nature, 453 (2008), pp. 980-982
[65.]
The insider's guide to plagiarism [editorial]. Nat Med. 2009;15:707.
Copyright © 2010. Sociedad Española de Neurología
