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

Is scientific publishing a criminal activity?

David M Goldberg1

  • 1Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Banting Institute, 100 College St., Toronto ON, Canada M5G 1X5.

Clinical Biochemistry
|May 30, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Defective Assistive Device Involvement in Older Adult Emergency Department Visits.

Innovation in aging·2024
Same author

A semiautomated risk assessment method for consumer products.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis·2023
Same author

Safety Concerns in Mobility-Assistive Products for Older Adults: Content Analysis of Online Reviews.

Journal of medical Internet research·2023
Same author

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Inequities in Access to Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

Journal of the American Heart Association·2023
Same author

Injury prevention for older adults: A dataset of safety concern narratives from online reviews of mobility-related products.

Data in brief·2022
Same author

Characterizing accident narratives with word embeddings: Improving accuracy, richness, and generalizability.

Journal of safety research·2022
Same journal

Analytical outlier rates for Roche fifth generation cardiac troponin T stat using biotin sensitive and insensitive reagent lots.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Evaluation of hemoglobin interference thresholds for chemical urinalysis panels.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Integrated genomic and biochemical diagnosis of a novel homozygous start-loss variant in AKR1D1 associated with neonatal cholestasis.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Agreement between POC glucose meters and blood gas analyzers varies across ICU patient populations.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

From variability to value: Advancing vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring toward decision-grade practice through commutability-informed external quality assessment and uncertainty-aware reporting.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
Same journal

Response to the letter to the editor: From variability to value: Advancing vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring toward decision-grade practice through commutability-informed external quality assessment and uncertainty-aware reporting.

Clinical biochemistry·2026
See all related articles

Scientific publishing integrity is compromised by flawed oversight. This analysis explores breakdowns in detecting poor, erroneous, or fraudulent research, proposing solutions for improved scientific communication.

Area of Science:

  • * Scientific Publishing Ethics
  • * Research Integrity
  • * Scholarly Communication

Background:

  • * Scientific publication involves authors, referees, editors, and publishers with varying standards.
  • * Recent high-profile fraud cases suggest systemic issues in scientific publishing oversight.
  • * Ineptitude or misconduct within the publication chain can lead to the dissemination of flawed research.

Purpose of the Study:

  • * To analyze the breakdown of regulatory mechanisms in scientific publishing.
  • * To identify points of failure in detecting and eliminating poor, erroneous, or fraudulent scientific findings.
  • * To propose solutions for enhancing the integrity of the scientific publication process.

Main Methods:

  • * Subjective analysis of the scientific publishing process.

Related Experiment Videos

  • * Examination of the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (authors, referees, editors, publishers).
  • * Review of existing and potential regulatory and surveillance mechanisms.

    • Main Results:

    • * Identified weaknesses in the surveillance chain designed to control scientific publishing.
    • * Highlighted how varying agendas and adherence to standards contribute to publication failures.
    • * Indicated that current mechanisms are insufficient to consistently detect and eliminate problematic research.

    Conclusions:

    • * Regulatory mechanisms for scientific publishing have significant vulnerabilities.
    • * Addressing issues of competence and integrity among all stakeholders is crucial.
    • * Implementing effective fixes is necessary to restore trust and accuracy in scientific dissemination.