A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct

被引：6

作者：

Bolland M.J. ^{[1
]}

Avenell A. ^{[2
]}

Gamble G.D. ^{[1
]}

Buranyi S. ^{[3
]}

Grey A. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Bone and Joint Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland

[2] Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen

来源：

BMC Research Notes | / 11卷 / 1期

关键词：

Misconduct; Research fraud; Retraction;

D O I：

10.1186/s13104-018-3613-1

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Objective: We investigated whether responses about possible scientific misconduct from journals to journalists would differ in speed, usefulness, and tone from responses to academics. Twelve journals that published 23 clinical trials about which concerns had been previously raised were randomly assigned to enquiries by a journalist or academics. Emails were sent every 3 weeks to the journal editor. We recorded the time for the journal to respond, and two investigators independently assessed the usefulness and tone of the journal responses. Results: 10/12 journals responded: 3 after one email, 5 after two emails, and 2 after three emails (median time from first email to response: 21 days; no difference in response times to journalist or academics, P = 0.25). Of the 10 responses, 8 indicated the journal was investigating, 5 had a positive tone, 4 a neutral tone, and 1 a negative tone. Five of the enquiries by the academics produced information of limited use and 1 no useful information, whereas none of the 6 journalist enquiries produced useful information (P = 0.015). None of the 10 responses was considered very useful. In conclusion, journal responses to a journalist were less useful than those to academics in understanding the status or outcomes of journal investigations. © 2018 The Author(s).

引用

共 12 条

[1]

Kranke P., Apfel C.C., Roewer N., Fujii Y., Et al., Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly nice!, Anesth Analg, 90, pp. 1004-1007, (2000)

[2]

Yentis S.M., Lies, damn lies, and statistics, Anaesthesia., 67, pp. 455-456, (2012)

[3]

Carlisle J.B., The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity, Anaesthesia., 67, pp. 521-537, (2012)

[4]

Fang F.C., Steen R.G., Casadevall A., Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109, pp. 17028-17033, (2012)

[5]

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines, (2009)

[6]

Bolland M.J., Avenell A., Gamble G.D., Grey A., Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials, Neurology., 87, pp. 2391-2402, (2016)

[7]

Gross R.A., Statistics and the detection of scientific misconduct, Neurology., 87, (2016)

[8]

Buranyi S., The Hi-tech War on Science Fraud, (2017)

[9]

Buranyi S., Is the Staggeringly Profitable Business of Scientific Publishing Bad for Science? 2017

[10]

Buranyi S., Devlin H., Dozens of Recent Clinical Trials May Contain Wrong or Falsified Data, Claims Study, (2017)

← 1 2 →