Articles in Professional Journals
Sanger, Laura Jeanne. Exorcizing the Ghosts (and Other Authorship Issues That Go Bump in the Night). Life Sciences Practice Group, November 2009.
|Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738|
A recent study conducted at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom found that while only 1.97% of respondents admitted to committing research misconduct, one third of respondents admitted to "other questionable research practices".
|Scheife, Richard T. A Ghost in the Machine. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29(4):363-364. |
Pharmacotherapy has revised the mandatory list of questions that they ask of authors when submitting manuscripts to their journal to ensure that ghost and guest authorship are eliminated.
|DeAngelis, Catherine D., Fontanarosa, Phil B. Retraction: Cheng B-Q, et al. Chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 301(18):1931, 2009. |
This is a retraction from JAMA for an article that they published in the April 9, 2008 issue. It was found that the investigators from Shandong University in China did not submit their protocol to their IRB and that the study was not well designed, randomized, or controlled.
|Sternberg, Robert J. A New Model for Teaching Ethical Behavior. The Chronicle Review, 55(33):B14, April 24, 2009. |
After witnessing first-hand the reluctance of individuals to act against unethical conduct, the author suggests an 8-step model for solving ehtical issues.
|Gotzsche, Peter C., Kassierer, Jerome P., Woolley, Karen L., Wagner, Elizabeth, Jacobs, Adam, Gertel, Art, Hamilton, Cindy. What Should Be Done to Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature? The PLoS Medicine Debate, 6(2), 2009, e1000023. |
This article focuses on two viewpoints on the topic of ghostwriting. The first author argues that ghostwriting constitues scientific misconduct. The second group of authors argue that professional medical writing can be useful to manuscripts, but ghostwriting is wrong.
|Titus, Sandra L., Wells, James A., Rhoades, Lawrence J. Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(19),2008.|
The authors implemented a survey to 2,212 researchers and found that a large number of potential misconduct cases may go unreported every year. The article hypothesizes why so many cases may go unreported and discusses ways that institutions can encourage researchers to speak out if they feel that misconduct has occurred.
|Cicutto, Lisa. Plagiarism* Avoiding the Peril in Scientific Writing. CHEST, 133:579-581, 2008. |
The author focuses specifically on the ramifications of self-plagiarism and offers tips to avoid commiting plagiarism.
|Fox, Peter T., Bullmore Ed, Bandettini, Peter A., Lancaster, Jack L. Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding Logothetis vs. Shmuel and Leopold. Human Brain Mapping, 30(2):347-354, 2008. |
The authors describe what can happen when a dispute occurs between editors of scientific journals during the peer review process. They also offer a solution, which they call Data Rights Policy and a Data Rights Procedure for Human Brain Mapping, which has subsequently been adopted.
|Travis, Kate. Recent Conference Addresses Research Integrity on Global Scale. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 100(1):7-10, 2008. |
As research has become more globalized, research administrators need to create universally-accepted practices for research integrity. In September 2008, the European Science Foundation and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity met at the first world conference on research integrity. This article addresses some of the issues that were discussed.
|Correcting the scientific record. Nature Chemical Biology, 4:381, 2008. The editors comment on the retraction of a paper following an investigation into allegations of misconduct by a committee at the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. They urge a greater transparency in the investigation process to uphold the integrity of science and scientific literature.|
|Redman, B.K. and Merz, J.F. Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime? Science, 321:775, 2008. |
The authors review the literature to determine what sanctions were imposed on those with findings of scientific misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
|Smith R. Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ, 331(7511):288-91, 2005.|
The author describes a series of events leading to Nutrition retracting a study by Canadian researcher R K Chandra. Questions have now been raised about the integrity of the rest of his work. BMJ originally raised doubts about a manuscript submitted by the same researcher, but was unable to alert Nutrition in a timely manner before they published essentially the same study that BMJ was concerned about. The author raises important questions in this article about the responsibilities of various entities involved in research as far as investigating previous work and if necessary punishing the researcher and correcting the scientific record.
|White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ, 331(7511):281-288, 2005|
When research misconduct is suspected and the researcher is working outside the jurisdiction of official research bodies, there is nowhere for editors to turn. If they want to investigate their concerns, they are invariably forced to go it alone—a lengthy, costly, and difficult process.
Claxton, L.D. Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat. Res. 589(1): 17–30, 2005
|Claxton, L.D. Scientific authorship Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat. Res. 589(1): 31-45, 2005|
In a series of two articles, LD Claxton first discusses some of the better-known cases of scientific fraud. In the second article, he provides a historical overview of commonly encountered scientific authorship issues, a comparison of opinions on these issues, and the influence of various organizations and guidelines in regards to these issues.
|Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 144:609-13, 2006.|
The author discusses “cleansing medical literature” of retracted articles. The author describes the roles of various parties in investigating claims of fraudulence, correcting the scientific literature, and preventing misconduct.