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

What do journal editors do when they suspect research misconduct?

Elizabeth Wager

    Medicine and Law
    |November 1, 2007
    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

    Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice.

    Research integrity and peer review·2021
    Same author

    Consent for publishing patient photographs.

    Case reports in women's health·2020
    Same author

    Deidentification of facial photographs: a survey of editorial policies and practices.

    Journal of medical ethics·2020
    Same author

    Advancing research integrity: a programme to embed good practice in Africa.

    The Pan African medical journal·2019
    Same author

    What Patients, Students and Doctors Think About Permission to Publish Patient Photographs in Academic Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Croatia.

    Science and engineering ethics·2019
    Same author

    Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines.

    Journal of clinical epidemiology·2019
    Same journal

    CRIMINAL CONDUCT DUE TO DRUNKENNESS: CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BRAZILIAN TRAFFIC LEGISLATION.

    Medicine and law·2019
    Same journal

    TRANSDISCIPLINARITY IN STRATEGIC DECISIONS FOR ONCOLOGICAL TREATMENTS.

    Medicine and law·2019
    Same journal

    LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN'S HEALTH IN JAPAN.

    Medicine and law·2019
    Same journal

    ANTICIPATED DIRECTIVES OF WILL, ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE, HEALTH CARE ATTORNEY: AN ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION.

    Medicine and law·2019
    Same journal

    HEALTH LAW AND ELDERLY PERSONS.

    Medicine and law·2019
    Same journal

    IS A 'NO FAULT' COMPENSATION SCHEME THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEMS OF TORT IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE?

    Medicine and law·2019
    See all related articles

    Journal editors face challenges investigating scientific misconduct. This study of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) cases reveals common issues and the need for better editor training and institutional cooperation.

    Area of Science:

    • Publication Ethics
    • Scientific Integrity

    Background:

    • Published guidelines recommend thorough investigation of suspected scientific misconduct by journal editors.
    • The practical application of these guidelines by editors remains under-explored.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To examine the actual practices of journal editors when handling cases of suspected author misconduct.
    • To identify challenges and outcomes in the investigation of scientific misconduct.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of 79 cases of author misconduct submitted to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1998 and 2003.
    • Categorization of misconduct types including redundant publication, unethical research, fabrication, clinical misconduct, and plagiarism.
    • Review of reported outcomes, editor actions (e.g., contacting institutions), and case durations.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Redundant publication was the most frequent type of misconduct (33 cases).
    • Outcomes were reported in 49 cases: 16 authors exonerated, 17 reprimanded, and 16 reached an impasse.
    • Editors contacted authors' institutions in 24 cases, and nearly half of all cases (36) exceeded one year in duration.

    Conclusions:

    • Investigating scientific misconduct presents significant difficulties for journal editors.
    • There is a clear need for enhanced training and guidance for editors.
    • Improved cooperation from academic institutions is crucial for effective misconduct resolution.