投诉和上诉

在一位作者的随机对照试验发表后，他们收到了一封信，信中作者暗示最初的试验可能存在欺诈。首先，作者声称，仅由一个作者进行前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验是极不可能的，尤其是在一个小的地区医院。记者还担心，书中没有提到其他标准治疗方法。他们向一位统计学家和一位胃肠病学家寻求建议，两人都对这篇论文提出了严重的质疑。编辑请医院院长去调查。最初，医院的医务主任写信说，除非该杂志愿意支付调查费用，否则他们不可能进行调查。这位编辑回答说，他认为这很荒谬，因为如果有人向警方提出严重投诉，他们就不会被要求支付调查费用。医务主任最终同意了这一点，并安排了一名经验丰富的独立研究人员对案件进行审查。研究发现，作者已经因临床原因被停职，而且在研究首次发表时，一位大学教授被要求查看研究结果。作为一名经验丰富的统计学家，他没有发现严重的问题。 Nor did the independent researcher find any serious problems. No further action has therefore been taken, but are there any conclusions to be drawn?

一位编辑跨来了一封信从主编，首席他的日记中给断言他已建议接受手稿审阅。他实际上已经建议相反的口头和书面的。有问题的文件是对一种比较常见的医疗条件的治疗选择的指导方针。作者声称他们的结论和治疗建议“循证”，并建议一个新的，昂贵的药物作为一线治疗。手稿的评论混合。一位评论家只取得了一些意见和建议出版物。表达了明显的偏差的关注和怀疑有二审稿曾在论文的撰写制药公司参与。当手稿在科学编辑例会审查，编辑建议拒绝的手稿，这是在手稿记“日志”。编辑总司令决定请求第三次审查，这次从指导专家。bob官方app在此期间，主要作者曾在与编辑，总编辑长发言。 Although the expert reviewer expressed concerns about the manuscript, the editor-in-chief chose to accept the manuscript for publication. In accordance with journal policy, the reviewers were notified that the manuscript had been accepted, prompting the second reviewer to again express concern about bias. The editor-in-chief replied, saying that the editor had recommended publication. Under the previous editor-in-chief, there had been a formal policy with the professional body with which the journal was associated, outlining the journal’s editorial freedom. But after he left this began to change. A memo was sent from the association stipulating that any editorial material published in the journal from the association should have an elected official as the author, even if a researcher on staff or a scientific committee had written it.The editor questioned this policy on the basis that it was at odds with the definition of authorship by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).The editor-in-chief ignored these concerns. Shortly thereafter, the association’s CEO announced that no letters should be published in the association’s journal that criticised association policy. The editor-in-chief initially stated to the journal staff that he disagreed with this and requested that any such letters be directed to him. He assured staff that if he thought these letters merited publication, he would discuss them with the CEO. Since then, no letter criticising association policy has been published. When a scientific editor submits an article to his own journal, the policy was that another scientific editor would handle the manuscript; likewise, the fate of the manuscript would be made known to the author/editor in a confidential manner. The editor had co-authored a manuscript with another researcher and had submitted it to the journal for consideration. Several months later, in a meeting of copy editors and publication staff to discuss the placement of accepted manuscripts, the editor-in-chief announced that the reviewers had recommended rejection. He had not informed the editor beforehand. In actual fact, none of the original reviewers had recommended rejecting the paper. Manuscripts that had not been accepted were not usually discussed at these meetings and such behaviour contravened the ICMJE recommendations. The editor-in-chief said he would request another opinion before he made the final decision. When the co-author of the paper wrote, asking when the final decision would be taken, the editor in chief accused the editor of breaching confidentiality but wrote to the co-author assuring him that the manuscript would be treated fairly and promptly. The editor did not send out the manuscript for another opinion for almost two weeks.When he did, he identified in the covering letter that “he would elect to reject the manuscript” but sought the reviewer’s opinion. However, two days earlier, he had sent a letter to one of the original reviewers asking him to write a “single or several papers” on the exact same topic. About two weeks later, the editor-in-chief rejected our manuscript, apologising for the delay, and noting “we had some difficulty finding a person to give an editorial opinion of the review.” In a further instance, the editor was asked to review a manuscript for the journal that purported to be an evidence-based guideline. The other reviewers included the previous editor of the journal and an outside reviewer. The editor identified several concerns and included suggestions on how the manuscript could be strengthened; the previous editor gave very similar feedback. The third reviewer had only a few superficial comments, such as a title change. However, the editor-in-chief requested an additional review from an expert in evidence-based medicine, but accepted the manuscript with minor revisions, including the title change, before receiving these comments. Later, the additional review came in, seriously questioning the evidence base of the manuscript, but it was never sent to the author. The manuscript was published with minor revisions. The editor was sacked. The staff were told only that confidentiality precluded giving an explanation; unofficially it was intimated that he had simply been too difficult to get along with. The journal is still publishing, and the relationship between the Association and the Journal is increasingly intimate. There appears to have been a Faustian bargain made between the CEO of the Association and the editor-in-chief of the Journal whereby, in exchange for compromising editorial freedom in sensitive areas for the Association, he could publish what he wanted without feeling constrained by the usual editorial standards. _ If feedback from peer review is ignored, who will know? Most journal editors work in relative isolation and there is virtually no quality control. _ Who polices the relationship between a science-based association and its journal, a relationship that has its own particular set of challenges, involving both scientific and political elements. _ What can be done to stop/prevent corruption within the editorial office of a scientific publication, an issue that has virtually escaped discussion and consideration within the scientific community? _ What will it take to create the political will to ensure the integrity of scientific editors? _ There is often no way to formally investigate and address alleged abuses of editorial power, especially if these abuses are in the interests of the publisher or parent organisation.

一位临床医学教授被邀请担任一篇投稿论文的审稿人。这篇论文没有公开发表，也没有以抽象的形式发表。审稿人返回了一份大量建议修改的清单，但对这篇论文给予了很高的评价。另外两位审稿人也给了这篇论文很高的评价，但只建议了一些小的修改。编辑邀请作者进行小修改，随后接受了修改后的论文，没有将其发回给三位审稿人。然而，审稿人收到了编辑发来的一封抄写信，通知他们修改后的稿件已被接受。随后，编辑收到了临床教授的来信，询问是否可以给他一份已被接受的修订版或校样。他还宣布，他自己的小组受到刺激，在审查论文后，在他们自己的患者组检查相同的标记物，他的小组认为，他们可以确认和扩展提交作者的重要观察。_审稿人是否有权密切跟踪稿件直至发表?_对于这一事实，编辑应该做些什么，这位审稿人似乎已经改变了他的研究活动和方向，作为审查提交的论文的直接后果?

收到了案例报告，相应的作者已予正式通知。相应的（和高级作者）立即发布，要求谁提交案件报告，因为他尚未征询并没有看到稿件。提交信包含了所有四位作者的姓名;三个签名已经使用相同的笔制造，可能是同样的手。高级和通讯作者的签名显然是“PP”。编辑响应，指出不当行为，并收到高级提交人同意的迅速的书面回应，即这不是前进的方法。高级作者并没有觉得此事应该进一步采取，而不是通过编辑的正式信件给予误解的作者。编辑应该做些什么？

一个国际专家医学杂志在英国和国外有独立运作的编辑。1998年，一家科学杂志的一期报道说，一位海外编辑因为科学造假而被大学教授解雇。这在三篇已发表的研究论文中都有记载。该报告强调了一篇特别的论文，其中引用了27篇参考文献，表明该编辑是其中19篇论文的作者或合著者。详细记录研究内容的实验室笔记本不见了。大学委员会表示，该研究报告错误地提供了数据，这些数据被篡改，以产生预期的统计结果。编辑说这是无心之过，实验室工作人员使用了糟糕的研究方法。编辑正试图以法律手段推翻该大学的诉讼。英国编辑写信给杂志，询问讨论的事件是否会影响杂志的编辑安排。编辑还应该做些什么?这个问题是否影响了他自己作为与海外编辑并行工作的编辑的地位，因为两者都不对另一方负责?

一篇论文被提交给A期刊，并作为快速通讯发表。随后发现，该专业的美国主要期刊发表了来自同一组患者的其他发现，这篇论文也在同一时间被他们考虑。这两篇论文的信息是密切相关但又不同的，但其中任何一篇都可能被合并到另一篇发表。当作者向《a》杂志提交了一篇关于相同病人的论文时，所有这一切都暴露了出来。这一次，他们使用了一种似乎完全合理的新技术来扩展他们的研究;奇怪的是，他们没有承认他们分析的样本来自那些病例曾被使用和发表过的病人。事实上，之前的两篇论文都不承认另一篇。给那位资深作者寄去了一封信，要求他作出解释。资深作者回应说，她给我的提交信中说，她的作品没有在其他地方发表过，这是一份形式信，签名是一个疏忽。

日本作者的一项研究被提交给了专业杂志A。手稿被寄给了包括x专家在内的三名评论家。两周后，专家X联系编辑部，说竞争的专家期刊B向X所在单位的专家Y发送了一份相同的稿件。专家X和专家Y对两份稿件进行了比较和讨论。专家X说，日本作者显然试图双重出版，因此是完全不道德的，应该受到严厉谴责。作为期刊A的编辑，应该做些什么:1显然同时投稿两种期刊的问题?2违反欺诈?专家X(还有专家Y，受另一家杂志B委托)?

一份文件的共同作者联系了我们，他在5年前发布的一篇论文与一名研究员一起出版，他们现已被GMC针对研究不当行为所定罪的严重专业不当行为。

共同作者担心他共同撰写的论文也可能是欺诈性的。

该研究有两部分。第一个由未被定罪的医生分析的医生分析，但被定罪的医生负责面试和原始数据收集。该公司毫无疑问，该项目的这一部分正常进行。第二部分涉及后续电话问卷，由被定罪的医生承担，而无需先前了解了共同作者。合作社没有看过问卷答案表，以便为他提供电话采访的任何证据。现在无法找到原始数据，但这可能并不是如此有关机构的重组。被定罪的医生确实提供了他所说的个人名单，他所召集的人和书面向我们撰写的共同作者进行了后续可行性调查，以了解有多少患者回忆起电机采访。没人做过。我们应该撤回这篇文章吗？

这一案件由即将提交论文的作者对我描述。他发现，他的团队成员为其他研究产生了许多欺诈性数据，并违反了道德委员会的同意。该研究人员已向GMC报告，他的案件正在等待。本文提交给我们的论文的问题是，欺诈性研究人员错误地声称他从三个伦理委员会获得同意，为患者成为X型X型思考。提交人已经回到了三个委员会，他们都同意在活动后批准。他们的判断是，由于同意问题，抑制这些有用的数据是不道差的。提交人来看我询问我们是否担心出版本文。我说我认为发布论文是可以接受的，但我们应该明确围绕它的问题。委员会是否同意？

3月7日提交了一份杂志，于5月20日修订，于3月21日提交给另一日，于5月21日提交，7月29日，于1997年12月2日公布。两篇论文的内容是相同的，但每个文件的内容都是相同的参考样式所以显然是两个不同的期刊。第一个期刊的提交信明确规定了材料尚未在其他地方提交。两位编辑现在应该怎么做？