Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.

D M Parrish1

  • 1Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1207, USA. dparrish@counsel.com

Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
|April 1, 1999
PubMed
Summary

Journal editors face challenges in correcting scientific literature due to misconduct. A case study reveals significant delays in addressing fabricated data, highlighting issues with accountability and timely notification to maintain research integrity.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process.

JAMA·1997
Same author

Falsification of credentials in the research setting; scientific misconduct?

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·1996
Same author

Image communications. What is needed and why.

Applied radiology·1985
Same author

Characteristics of a professional nursing practice climate: a survey.

The Journal of nursing administration·1981

Area of Science:

  • Bibliometrics
  • Research Integrity
  • Scientific Publishing

Background:

  • Scientific misconduct, including data fabrication, poses a significant threat to the integrity of published research.
  • Journal editors are central to the process of addressing and correcting the scientific literature when misconduct is alleged or proven.
  • A case involving fabricated data in a federally-sponsored study revealed a nearly four-year delay in informing relevant journals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine the responsibilities of various stakeholders in preventing the publication of falsified data.
  • To determine who is responsible for correcting the scientific record when misconduct is discovered and the optimal timing for such corrections.
  • To investigate the procedures for notifying the scientific community about retractions or corrections and the content of such notices.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of an instructive incident involving fabricated data and allegations of scientific misconduct.
  • Review of data from 25 cases to assess the timeframes for correcting the literature after misconduct allegations.
  • Examination of the roles and expectations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies in the misconduct reporting process.

Main Results:

  • Substantial delays in notifying journals and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are common.
  • Journal editors have historically been disconnected from the scientific misconduct process.
  • Discrepancies exist in the perceived obligations of authors, institutions, and agencies regarding informing journals of misconduct allegations.

Conclusions:

  • There are endemic delays in addressing and correcting the scientific literature following allegations of research misconduct.
  • All parties involved need a better understanding of their roles in upholding the integrity of biomedical literature.
  • Improved communication and clearer protocols are necessary to ensure timely and effective corrections to the scientific record.