一篇论文的审稿人联系了《a》杂志，指出一篇关于职业压力测量的评论论文，有很大一部分几乎是一篇较长的评论的逐字复制，该评论发表在另一份不同但相关的专业杂志上。《A》杂志的编辑证实了这一点。不仅对这些措施的描述从以前的出版物中删除，而且对它们的用处的评论等等。参考了以前的出版物，但只是为了一个小问题，而且参考文献并没有表明该论文的各部分被大规模复制。这篇论文来自于一个受人尊敬的机构，通讯作者是一个受人尊敬的研究者。第一作者大概是这篇评论的起草者，他获得了该机构的研究奖学金。似乎合著者并不知道第一作者的剽窃行为。《期刊A》的编辑写信给该作者，指出了明显的剽窃行为，并要求其作出解释。通讯作者对此进行了回复，并对错误进行了多次道歉，并表示将在进一步调查的过程中撤回论文。他解释说，由于没有更彻底地检查论文，整个小组都被认为有过错。 The author, a graduate student from another country who had written most of the paper, may have found that the language barrier made summarising findings from other papers into his/her own words difficult. There was probably no deliberate intent to copy chunks of the text without acknowledgement as indeed reference was made to the source. If warranted, however, the corresponding author would take action regarding present and future submissions from this author. New procedures would also be put into place to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate event. Finally, the corresponding author felt that a positive aspect of this incident was that it demonstrated the high calibre of the reviewers, and thanked them for doing such an excellent job. The editor was also thanked for seeking the corresponding author’s views on the matter.
一篇论文报道了一项与常见调查程序相关的随机对照试验。在进行手术时，患者可以采用两种不同的体位，个别操作者可能会选择其中一种，但这两种体位都是常规使用的。随机对照试验的目的是找出这种手术在某一种或另一种患者体位上是否在技术上更成功，以及患者是否有任何偏好。这是一个临床相关的问题，这项研究产生了一个明显有用和有意义的结果。该论文报道说，患者口头同意随机分配，但正如临床评论家指出的，没有提到伦理批准。作者被问及这个问题。他们回答说，他们没有申请伦理委员会的批准，他们之间仔细讨论了这个问题，在研究中唯一的变量是患者采用的体位，两种体位都是标准和既定实践的一部分。编辑们对这一观点表示了一些同情，但建议作者询问道德委员会，他们是否认为批准是必要的，如果是，他们是否会考虑回顾性地给予批准。对此，伦理委员长回答说:“应该提交伦理委员会的批准，但不可能进行回顾性审查或批准。”他还补充说，如果委员会考虑过这一点，他们可能不会满足于简单的口头同意，而是会要求书面同意，给患者24小时考虑他们是否想要参与。 Should the editors now reject the paper, or should they consider accepting it with an explanatory commentary about the ethical issue?
《A日报》编委会的一名成员被一位海外同事找到，说了一个奇怪的故事。在一群原告律师的资助下，在一个工业设施周围的社区进行了一项流行病学研究。该研究得出的结论是，社区的健康影响与设施排放的辐射有关。一篇基于该研究的论文被提交给了期刊A，但被拒绝了。它也是为了支持一项诉讼(与同一原告有关)而提交的。作为“发现”过程的一部分，作为原告专家证人的作者透露，该论文已被《A》杂志拒绝，他不得不向法庭提交审稿人的报告。海外同事看到了这些报告。一篇评论详尽而批评;另一种是一般性的，积极的，建议发表。在法庭上，这一积极的评价来自一名代表原告工作的受薪专家，他“与研究作者有超过10年的关系”。 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.