在审查修订的稿件时，期刊A的编辑发生在两个看起来非常相似的手稿中。一个是在接受的观点，待修改桌子;一个人刚刚被作者修订。两篇论文来自同一机构，显然是在与相同的暴露工人群体上，具有相同的测量，并且得出密切相关的结论。两篇论文都是共同的作者。在第一个纸张的修订版中，第二个论文的作者被命名为相应的作者。既不提到其他纸张。编辑写信给这些论文的两个相应作者，在采取行动之前要求解释。Journal A的编辑感到有意识地厌倦了过去12个月内发生的案件数量。再一次，这种情况是通过机会发现的。 The editor feels that there must be many more examples of duplicate publication that get through, especially when they go to different journals. How can editors prevent these cases, rather than trying to catch them in a net with many holes in it? Is the answer to take stronger action against those that are spotted, to send out a strong signal to others thinking about indulging in a spot of duplication?
发布一封信，提供有关在儿童中规定特定药物的指导。在儿童中使用这种药物的焦虑，并且在同一期刊上发表了一段时间从同一主题的基本上相同的群体的一封信。这封原始信的电子版包括利益冲突，但文件版没有。这是一个错误。不幸的是，纸张也没有新信的电子版本包括利息陈述。它显然应该做，并非最不重要的是，似乎当前信函的作者之一获得了药物制造商的资金。目的是继续利用利益冲突陈述，并在纸质和电子版本中发布期刊，但第二封信的主要作者似乎反对这一举措。期刊计划覆盖他的反对意见。应对是否同意这一点？第二封信提出的另一个问题是第三方写道，该信的三个作者不支持其中包含的一切。 Wouldn’t most people who read a piece that is signed by many authors believe that all authors support what is published unless it specifically states otherwise? What action should be taken on this issue?
在PubMed检索了1995-2000年间同一作者发表的370篇论文，并随机选取了16篇论文。两篇论文几乎一模一样，只在引言段落和作者名单上有所不同。两份出版物都没有承认对方。另一篇论文报道了“第二次发表的病例”，后续的两篇论文报道了同样的“第二次”病例，没有参考之前发表的论文。文本同样非常相似。随后，期刊A收到了一篇被拒绝的论文。除了作者名单有所变化外，这篇论文与两年前在另一份期刊上发表的一篇论文完全相同。有一篇标题和引言相同的论文也发表在另一份期刊上。这不能被检查，因为该期刊没有在任何英国研究图书馆。另外两份手稿提交给了期刊B，一份以信函的形式，另一份是完整的研究论文。 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?
建议：
_必须制造更广泛的询问;仅仅写信给作者就不够了。已经获得了独立评估，其中提交人的轻罪非常明显。_这是提交人的调查机构的问题。_通过在Medline上进行搜查，已经检测到先前的重复出版物的案例。_所有共同作者的角色也是在几篇论文中出现的所有共同作者也是值得怀疑的，尽管许多人可能没有意识到由于礼品作者而受累。在接近所有作者之前，这是不明智的不考虑这一群体的出版物。_编辑的主要问题是收回和关于提交人的重复的重复和向其机构负责人转介，提高了更广泛的欺诈犯罪问题。_海外监管机构通常不回复，也许是因为它们是不感兴趣的或觉得它没有应对探讨不当行为的企业。_检查提交信函以查看所有作者是否已签署。 _ The editor should present a fuller version of the case presented at COPE to the corresponding author and all co-authors who were repeatedly linked to this work, asking for a response. _ If there is no reply, or only an unsatisfactory reply is received, then send a second letter asking for a response, giving them a set time limit in which to reply. _ If still no reply is received refer the matter to the authors’ institution(s). _ The journal editors should jointly publish a retraction and unravel the story in an editorial. _ A further option would be to send a letter to a national journal such as The Lancet or the BMJ, exposing the duplication.
Junking X收到了两个稿件，来自作者A.两者都被接受并送到了出版商。在收到厨房证明时，相应的作者删除了来自两个稿件的最后一个作者的名称。在页面证明到达之前，期刊编辑收到了提交人员从作者名单中删除作者B的请求，而是提出合适的确认。编辑询问提交人A是否已经从作者B寻求了关于这一变革的作者B的协议，并补充说这不是刊门营造这些变化的日志。作者A的回复包括在提交手稿之后这两个作者之间开发的清晰明确的个人纠纷的答复。但是，编辑决定根据原作者列表恢复作家B，并通知发布者。几周后，出版商收到了作者B的沟通，指示他的名字可能已从三个稿件中删除的可能性，以至于他以前参与准备和提交的三个稿件。似乎作者B事实上是高级作者，而作者A是他实验室的研究员。出版商只能占前两个，因此联系了编辑以澄清。在进一步调查中，发现第三稿已被期刊X的编辑拒绝，但后来被追踪到y期刊y（谁也使用同一出版商）。 It was also noted that author B had already been removed. The publisher alerted the editors of Journal Y to the problem and the manuscript was rejected. The editors considered contacting the host institution, but discovered that the institute itself was racked with scandal and staff disputes. The editors finally decided to reject all future submissions from both authors A and B.
提交了一份文件，其中有七个贡献者，但没有相应的作者。谁曾派出本文的唯一身份证明是一家来自公关公司的陪同电子邮件。当编辑处联系时，公关公司确认本文将被视为可能的出版物。然后联系了被命名的贡献者并询问他们是否已授予其姓名的许可，并要求谁是相应作者，以及他们希望宣布任何利益冲突。这产生了一个非常有趣的势。一位提交人表示，该文件是由于他和其他贡献作者被邀请的研讨会制作的。他自己认为他只是向有关药物公司提供建议，他收到了收费。他认为，误解已经导致公关公司派本文进行审查，但他不知道他们已经这样做了，并建议纸张被切碎。另一个教会打电话说他能记得很少关于它，当然还没有看到最后的文件。在一些痛苦中打电话的第三作者焦虑，急于他可能被指控某种形式的不端行为，从来没有想过他的参与会导致提交纸质的纸张。 The most interesting letter of all was from the first named author who had subsequently written an editorial for the journal that was fairly critical of the drug concerned. The PR company who was acting for the drug company, she said, had submitted the paper on her behalf without her knowledge. Guidelines about the drug had also been published, with which she was not happy, but she had eventually signed an agreement to let her name be used in connection with these. The company told her that she was the only person among all those attending the seminar who had refused to do so, and as such, was creating unnecessary difficulties. The same company had previously published another article to which they had put her name, but which she had not written. This author feels very abused, particularly as she wrote to the PR company requesting that they did not use her name again. The intriguing finale to the story is that a Royal College had been negotiating with the PR company to represent it. On hearing of this incident, the College decided to make other arrangements.
在单一作者出版的随机对照试验之后，收到了一封信，其中通讯员建议原始试验可能是欺诈性的。首先，该作家声称，只有一个作者对一个提交人来说，这是一个人可以执行预期，随机，双盲，安慰剂对照试验，特别是在一个小区医院。该记者也担心没有提到其他标准治疗。来自统计学家和胃肠学家寻求建议，既有关于本文的严重疑虑。编辑要求医院的首席执行官调查。最初，医院医疗主任写道，他们不可能调查，除非愿意愿意支付调查。编辑回答说，他认为这种荒谬的是，如果有人对警察发起严重投诉，他们就不会被要求要求支付调查。医务总监最终同意了这一点，并安排了一名经验丰富的独立研究员审查该案件。它出现了提交人已被暂停为临床原因，并且已经要求大学教授在第一次出版时看看研究。一位经验丰富的统计学家，他发现没有严重的问题。 Nor did the independent researcher find any serious problems. No further action has therefore been taken, but are there any conclusions to be drawn?