投诉和申诉

一篇论文表明,一群症状,体征,可以结合和测试诊断肺炎惯例。论文被拒绝后,被两个编辑阅读,因为它是初步的,没有在一个独立的人口进行验证。作者提交一个新的手稿第二年,描述相同的病人和关注个体症状和测试结果的准确性在区分细菌病毒胸部感染。这次的论文审查和考虑选拔委员会之前被拒绝。作者没有提到他们先前的纸在求职信。明年作者提交另一个新研究描述相同的患者,但这一次探索哪些症状和体征与抗生素处方,是否这是适当的。他们又没有提及以前的手稿的求职信。重叠重新提交时发现的一个读者认可的主题和作者的名字,这促使搜索。

医科学生带来的重复相同在两个期刊出版专业第三日报的编辑的注意。这篇文章在杂志出版于1997年,这篇文章在杂志出版于1999年。这两个期刊的编辑写,要求他们进行调查。编辑写了几次前两年他退休了。编辑器收到杂志的反应只有一个,说唯一的问题是一个可能的侵权如果作者没有获得许可转载杂志中的表B,但治安版权不是《华尔街日报》的业务。信中继续说:“作者并没有违反(杂志)政策,我们首次发布。我们已经通知[B]杂志的编辑,他们可能想要进一步调查此事。”The editor replied that the main problem was with Journal B, but stating that it still appeared to be a case of misconduct and that the normal practice was for both journals to publish a joint statement drawing readers’ attention to that fact. The editor also felt that Journal A should inform the head of the author’s institution of the malpractice, and at their discretion, ban the author for a period. The editor felt that it was important that something was done to counter the belief that it is perfectly acceptable to publish the same work twice. And without making some kind of public statement, the journal would appear to be condoning the behaviour. The editor of Journal A responded: “Where [Journal A] has been transgressed upon we have done just what you propose. However, in this case we have not been. We do not have grounds for such action.” - Is there any further action the editor could take?

提交一篇文章由三个独立的机构三位作者期刊是发出两个裁判。裁判注意到一个明显的相似性与回顾一年前发表在期刊B,但由两个完全不同的作者写的。电子杂志发表文章的副本B的网站表示,整个出版审查提交的手稿是相同的,除了一个部分和两个人物的遗漏。事实上,引用列表不变,除了一个引用独特的省略部分,虽然它不是引用,和一个引用新作者的工作的一个方面被添加。杂志联系作者,要求一个解释的重叠和规定一个月决定进一步行动之前响应时间。作者也警告说,各自的主办机构将被通知并要求调查如果反应是令人不满意的。相应的作者写的,说他/她错误地提交了一份“参考文件”,换成“真正的纸。”——作者应该禁止提交以后的文章《华尔街日报》,无限期或定义一段吗?杂志的编辑B应该通知,如果是在什么阶段,有什么影响?——《华尔街日报》发表一篇社论,应该名字罪魁祸首,或采取任何其他行动通知其他科学和医学期刊编辑吗?——如果机构响应并不健壮,进一步的行动应该采取的名字的机构?

发表的一篇文章被转载在外语杂志,完全相同的结果和文本。只是添加了一些额外的引用。资深作者写了道歉的外语出版,但是认为第二个出版物是不同的。

但是编辑不同意:外语出版物没有引用原来的英语版本,他禁止作者出版杂志。社会出版委员会随后决定,这种禁令应该适用于所有的社会的期刊,和一段10年。

• 应该禁止敷多久有先例,可以作为此类案件的指导吗?
• 惯例是什么时候复制发生在另一种语言出版吗?

一篇社论是委托一位著名的医生,他随后被判有罪的研究海外的不当行为。有一个缺乏共识在《华尔街日报》的国家是否这个判断是正确的。作者继续工作,但从他的监管机构正在等待判决。——编辑应该发表吗?——应该与一个脚注编辑出版指这些事件?——如果是这样,这条脚注应说什么?——编辑应该拒绝道德理由吗?

前一段时间发表的研究文章详细的侵入性检查。作者获得了患者的知情同意,但没有寻求伦理委员会批准。随后,《华尔街日报》发表的信件从X,详细介绍这篇文章的问题。X和其他曾试图复制研究未能实现描述的精度水平。X表示,这并不是一个建立临床试验之前,没有公布其申请目的说。此外,作者没有使用所需的认证测试,和患者条件影响神经。虽然文章发表的问题只有六周后首次出现,作者不可能产生的原始数据调查。X表示,国家监管机构已经在与他通信,它将让《华尔街日报》决定是否有欺诈行为。编辑说,这不是《华尔街日报》的理解国家监管机构的判断。《华尔街日报》决定等待国家监管机构的调查的结果。 The issues were complicated by senior members of the authors’ institution accusing X of disparagement, which initiated a further investigation by the national regulatory body. X was cleared of this charge. The investigation found no hard evidence of fraud. The journal’s editorial committee has repeatedly discussed the issue and feels that it should publish the findings of the national regulatory body and ask the authors to reply.

Somebody-possibly制药公司的代表或公关代理company-rang编辑代表研究的作者说,她将保证购买1000再版《华尔街日报》将继续考虑发表的一项研究,矛盾与《华尔街日报》刚刚推出的政策。“和”,她说,“我将给你买一个你选择在任何餐厅晚餐。“论文被拒绝,但进一步的行动应该采取吗?

这是杂志的注意,在2002年发表的一篇论文是相似的(标题、摘要、介绍、案例调查,结果,讨论)发表的一篇论文在期刊b .期刊是一个非常技术杂志报道会议论文集和不是同行评议。此外,杂志B收到了一封来自作者的另一篇论文,发表在一个非常著名的杂志,曾被批评的版本在杂志上发表的论文期刊B的政策没有出版字母在他们的杂志,但这封信发送论文的作者。当提交他们的论文期刊,作者考虑了一些评论杂志的编辑转发的信b,然后利用这些评论作者修改第二篇论文的作者不承认那封信。杂志的编辑常常觉得这篇文章发表在杂志B是一个完整的论文作者即使有争议。B的杂志编辑说作者”列入黑名单。”

期刊的编辑委员会成员接洽海外的同事有一个奇怪的故事。流行病学研究已经开展的工业设施周围的社区,由一群原告律师。这项研究得出的结论是,在社区健康影响是源自设施相关风险敞口。论文基于研究是提交给期刊和拒绝。也提交支持诉讼(与原告相同)。作为“发现”过程的一部分,作者,谁是原告的专家证人,透露,论文被期刊拒绝和他不得不向法院提交评审的报告。报告由海外的同事。一个详细审查和关键;另一个是一般的和积极的,推荐发表。出现在法庭上,积极审查来自个人工作代表原告支付专家,“有关系的研究作者十多年了。 ” The primary question from the overseas colleague is whether the reviewer was nominated by the author or was chosen quite independently by the Journal. Bias by the reviewer and collusion seems more likely if the reviewer was nominated by the author. Journal A encourages nomination of suitable reviewers, but only uses them sometimes, and always with another one chosen separately. The editor of Journal A is seeking legal advice about revealing whether the reviewer was nominated by the author. The Journal is also going to introduce a specific requirement for reviewers to declare any possible competing interests. This would not necessarily prevent malpractice, but it does show reviewers this is an issue that is taken seriously. This case is submitted as a reminder that reviewers can also misbehave and to seek guidance about any further action required. The positive review by the reviewer suspected of misconduct was apparently presented during the court case in support of the scientific validity of the paper rejected by Journal A. Legal advice to the editor of Journal A is that it is permissible to reveal that the reviewer in question was nominated by the author of the paper (as is the case) but without offering any comment on the case.

16个随机选择的论文检测的搜索PubMed 370出版物之间1995 - 2000由同一作者。两篇论文几乎是相同的,不同的只有引言段落的形式和作者的列表。既不承认其他出版。另一篇论文报告了“第二次以往出版情况”,和两个后续论文报道相同的“第二个”案件没有早些时候发表论文的引用。再次非常相似的文本。随后杂志收到了一篇论文,被拒绝了。除了改变作者的列表,这是相同的两年前发表的一篇论文,在不同的杂志。论文使用相同的标题和介绍也曾在另一个杂志上发表。这可能不会像《检查不可用在任何英国研究图书馆。两个进一步的手稿提交给期刊B,一个信的形式,第二个一个完整的研究报告。 The letter was lifted directly from the paper; furthermore one of the tables was identical to that presented in the paper. A further paper which had originally been rejected was resubmitted to Journal B, albeit slightly expanded, but with an entirely new list of authors. An independent statistician reviewed both papers and found that the content of two tables was identical except for the p values. Many of these had acquired a significance not suggested in the first manuscript. Further to this example and the examination of just a few of the listed publications, clear cases of duplicate publication and attempted duplication were found. It’s worrying that seemingly similar work can have different lists of authors, which suggests “gift” authorship. Changes in details of treatment and statistical significance throws the veracity of some of the work into question. Furthermore, the group’s general failure to cite its own publications suggests a deliberate attempt to cover up duplication. The editor of Journal B wants to inform the author that his publication will not consider any further submissions from this group. There is no guarantee that manuscripts would be original and issues of copyright are unclear. The editor would also like to alert the editors of the other journals involved. Is this a reasonable course of action to take?