A journal received an enquiry from a reader stating that they had found some discrepancies in the spectra published in the electronic supporting information for a published paper. They suggested that the discrepancies would be consistent with the spectra being manually ‘cleaned’. If this were true, the characterisation and purity of the compounds reported in the paper would be called into question.
The editor checked the spectra in close detail and verified that the discrepancies that the reader had identified were a reasonable cause for concern. The editor also checked the author’s related papers in the journal and identified a total of four papers that were affected by similar discrepancies in the spectra. When the editor contacted the lead author to discuss the concerns, they explained that ‘cleaning’ spectra to remove impurity peaks was not a practice that was carried out by their research group, and they did not believe that it had occurred in this instance. However, the researcher who had carried out the analysis had now left the group and the original data files where no longer available.
As a comparison with the original data files could not be made, the journal approached an independent expert to obtain a second opinion on the evidence available in the published spectra. The expert confirmed that there was clear evidence that the spectra had been altered and that this could be consistent with an attempt to overestimate the yields for the reported reactions.
遵循此期限，联系了研究所主任，要求帮助他们确定谱是否实际上已被改变。主任与主要作者和其设施负责人进行了磋商。他们确认由于归档系统的限制，无法定位原始数据。他们表示，他们的内部审查没有发现任何“故意改变光谱”。他们表示，在此基础上，不应怀疑论文，应该允许立场。
This recommendation runs contrary to the evidence that we believe can be seen in the spectra, but in the absence of the original data files it is difficult to make a conclusive judgement.
Question(s) for the COPE Forum
•编辑器现在应该采取哪些操作来解决这一问题？期刊正在考虑两种选择：
—accept the research institute’s recommendation that without evidence to prove deliberate manipulation of the data no further action should be taken.
- 提出了对每个受影响的文章的关注通知的表达，该研究所被要求调查，但是，原始数据不可用，他们没有发现故意操纵光谱的证据。
论坛承认，编辑很难决定是否接受对案件的结论，或者如果事实上，期刊应该做出更多，并涉及其涉及编辑委员会和/或其独立专家的调查。
The Forum questioned the type of investigation the institution carried out. If it was a thorough research misconduct investigation, the journal should be able to rely on the results of that investigation as this usually involves multiple levels of investigation, an enquiry, with a faculty board reviewing all of the data that are then made available to the journal. However, if the journal received a relatively rapid response from the institution, then perhaps the internal review is not very reliable.
论坛询问期刊是否有数据可用性策略 - 期刊是否要求根据要求提供的研究数据？实际问题是原始数据不可用的原因。缺乏原始数据是一个严重的问题。机构的最低要求是策划和保留数据，预计任何声誉良好的机构通常会遵守研究结束后的一段时间（通常约5年）的数据。因此，这是该机构的失败。单独的是，可能是缩回纸张或发表关注的表达。
If the editor is confident that there is a problem with the paper, and confident in the advice of their experts, then the journal should consider publishing an Expression of Concern, detailing the facts of the case, and pointing out the discrepancies between the findings of the institution and what the editor believes.
If the journal has a post-publication comments section, another suggestion was to encourage the reader to post their concerns, giving the authors a chance to respond as well as allowing more participation from readers. This would also allow for more transparency of the issue.
The journal followed-up with the institute to outline their concerns and explain that the journal would like to publish an Expression of Concern linked to each of the affected articles. The institute was supportive of that approach and so the journal is now following-up accordingly to issue the notices.