收到了一篇论文，详细介绍了一项对新生儿进行的研究项目，该项目涉及从他们身上采集侵入性(和痛苦的)样本。从科学价值的角度来看，这篇论文是值得发表的，但有两个问题让编辑们感到担忧。首先，尚不清楚患病婴儿的样本是否会被用作临床治疗的一部分，或者这些样本是否只是为了试验而采集的。裁判认为报告的某些参数表明是后者。其次，更令人担忧的是，健康婴儿的对照组也采集了类似的样本。对照组包括所有符合纳入标准的婴儿。编辑们担心，如果没有父母的某种强迫，这是不可能的。编辑们写信给作者，要求解释，并了解到这些样本确实是工作人员在收集另一种常规样本时采集的。作者补充说:“我们抓住了这个机会，征求了父母的同意，多抽了一点血……我们的伦理委员会绝不会仅仅为了研究而批准在正常婴儿身上进行(侵入性手术)。” The editors then asked for clarification of the precise nature of the ethics committee approval and parent consent forms, pointing out that the routine sample collection would not involve the invasive procedure performed except in limited circumstances. The authors responded by withdrawing the paper and declining to send the relevant documents. They complained that the editors had mistrusted them. Should this be taken further? The editors think it should, on the grounds that the babies were unnecessarily subjected to a painful procedure.
期刊A刊登了一篇由三位作者撰写的综述，其中X博士为第一作者。五个月后，期刊A的编辑从W教授那里得知，X博士综述中的一个人物最初出现在1990年期刊B上W教授与人合著的一篇研究论文中。教授还说，X博士在期刊C、D(研究论文)和E(评论)上发表了相同或非常相似的数据。《C杂志》的论文是《A杂志》评论的参考文献5。X博士否认他“偷”了这个数字。然而，在经过“专家评审”后，《C杂志》得出结论，数据是相同的，该杂志的编辑撤回了X博士的论文。此后，X博士对《c》杂志的一位编辑提起了法律诉讼。W教授正在推动完全撤回《a》杂志上的这篇综述。X博士愿意自愿撤回这篇论文，但他的共同作者不支持这一点，因为有问题的数字对综述的无争议结论没有影响。《期刊A》发表了一份声明，指出了《期刊C》的撤稿，《期刊E》也发表了类似的声明。《D》杂志聘请了一位专家对W教授的原始病理材料进行检查。《A杂志》参与了这项调查。专家得出结论，杂志A和D发表的数据与W教授的原始幻灯片相同。 Dr X has been told by journals A and D that they will request his institution to investigate the allegations made against him. This case refers to the same disputed figure brought to COPE by another member journal in case 02/02.
建议:
_如果这张图最初是W教授的，发表于1990年，那么原始期刊将拥有该图的版权。_如果没有图表的评论是充分的，那么期刊可以撤回图表或承认原始版权所有者。要想对教授的说法做出正确的评价，就必须研究原来的幻灯片。_一个作者的形象怎么会落到另一个作者手里呢?该杂志被告知，W教授和X博士过去曾是合作者，这张照片已被输入临床图像数据库，据称是从该数据库中提取的。_是否有任何版权文件与存入数据库的图像有关?_如果X博士的共同作者不希望撤回论文，那么期刊可以发布附录/勘误，解释有关图形所有权的问题，并承认原始版权所有者。_解决W教授和X博士之间的争议不是期刊的责任_编辑可以在听取X博士的机构调查结果后决定采取何种行动。编辑应该设法获得更多关于信托基金调查的信息。_编辑应向医生和医疗主任的监管机构表达他的担忧，通知医生和信托基金他的意图。 As a registered physician, the editor has a duty to report any serious concerns to the regulatory body. _ The editor is a member of the regulatory body. which imposes a higher duty to report his concerns and act on them. _ The editor’s case for reporting was strengthened by the fact that he had taken the advice of COPE on the matter.
收到了来自同一作者的两篇论文，该作者是一名在二级/三级单位工作的儿科外科医生。在两年多的时间里，他为420名婴儿和60名儿童做了同样的小手术。他的论文声称报告了安全性和有效性。根据绞刑委员会自己的了解，并在与外科委员会成员核实后，一名儿科外科医生平均每年可能会做四到五个这样的手术，但报告中有超过200个。儿科医生认为这种手术是不必要的。所有儿科教科书都同意这一观点。显然，海外的一些儿科外科医生、家长支持团体和语言治疗师对此非常热衷。没有充分的证据来决定谁是对的。这些担忧是:1。由于没有已知的治疗适应症，它应该作为随机对照试验的一部分吗? 2. Ethics committee approval was not sought. 3. The stated indications for surgery were highly subjective and, in any case, mostly regarded by paediatricians as representing normal and transient physiological or behavioural events. 4. There were no statements made about mode of referral, and these surely could not have been made by local paediatricians. 5. Many infants were not anaesthetised, although the author claimed it caused no distress. The papers were rejected, and the author was informed of the anxieties. What should be done now?
_被批评论文作者的信是否类似于审稿人的报告?审稿人对论文进行评论，然后作者针对任何问题重写论文。_编辑认为这不是完全类似的，因为这封信不是“友好”的建议，而是为了发表而写的，反驳了文章的批评。这封信的内容没有抄袭。这封信的作者知道他们的评论已经被b杂志转发了。编辑觉得这封信的作者会希望他们的担忧被发表。_应要求作者对信件作者提出的关于重复发表的问题作出回应，然后编辑应发布撤稿通知。如果期刊B上的文章——如编辑所说——是经过同行评议的，作者怎么可能不知道呢?_然而，社会摘要的发表偶尔会导致无意的发表。同行评议可以简单地指一个小组审查会议的摘要或海报。一些社团记录并打印会议上的所有内容。 _ The high degree of overlap between the two papers suggested poor practice on the authors’ part. _ The editor should write to the authors’ employers about the issue and inform the authors of this. _ The editor should also publish a notice of duplicate publication in the journal. _ Indefinite “blacklisting” is not a considered action
一篇论文以作者A、B、C、D、E、F、g的顺序投稿到某在线期刊，经过审稿，接受发表，但作者需做一些小改动。在修改格式时，投稿作者将作者顺序改为B, A, C, D, E, F, g。编辑没有注意到这一变化，在准备最终的HTML格式时，手稿以初步PDF文档的形式发布在网站上。提交作者被通知已被接受并已发布初稿。在这个阶段，作者A联系了编辑，说作者名单不正确。由于手稿还没有最终定稿，在这个阶段对作者名单进行修改在技术上仍然是可能的。编辑联系作者A、B和G(提交作者)，要求他们同意正确的作者名单，并在一周内通过提交作者联系编辑。编辑还建议，一个可能的解决方案是表明作者a和作者B的贡献相同。作者与编辑联系,说作者应该是一个列表,B, C, D, E, F, G和作者G联系编辑说作者列表应该是B, A, C, D, E, F, G .鉴于这种分歧,编辑决定不编辑器的位置调解,要求作者G(提交作者)确认所有作者都意识到决定作者列表作为B, A, C, D, E, F,G.作者E联系编辑说，他很高兴由作者G(投稿作者)决定顺序。但是作者G没有回复。 After receiving no reply, the editor contacted author G again, saying that unless they heard to the contrary, the article would be published with the author list B, A, C, D, E, F, and G. After a further week, the editor had still heard nothing from author G and therefore decided to publish the article with the author order B, A, C, D, E, F, G since this was the order the submitting author had specified. The paper had been in preliminary form for over four weeks. The journal’s practice is to send an acknowledgement at submission to all authors. Papers are published on the same day as acceptance or shortly thereafter. This is the citation that PubMed picks up for indexing. The finalised html version is then posted a few days later. The journal now also emails all authors at acceptance stage. Should the case have been handled differently?
提交了一篇论文，详细介绍了一种药物治疗一种政治上有争议的疾病的小型海外试验。治疗有中度毒性。两名审稿人(A和B)看到了这篇论文，他们对所使用的方法提出了相当多的批评。C的评论也收到了，他被邀请参加评审，但拒绝了，因为他/她不希望根据期刊的开放同行评审政策让作者知道他/她的名字。C说，这项试验几乎没有正当理由，因此无法想象它已经获得了研究伦理委员会的批准。C还提到，这项研究是由未经同行评审的政府基金资助的。另一名裁判(D)被咨询，他同样不希望向作者透露他/她的身份，但重申了C的担忧。这篇论文因为方法论的原因被拒绝了，但是有一个提议是看看作者是否能解决这些批评。作者修改并重新提交了论文，论文被送到了更挑剔的审稿人(B)那里。他的观点是作者在改进论文方面做得很少。咨询了另一位审稿人(E)，他也收到了C和d的意见。E很高兴参加公开的同行评议，并得出结论:该试验几乎没有生物学依据; and that it was of such poor quality that the research ethics committees who approved it must be informed. The editors rejected the paper and wrote to the two research ethics committees who approved the study, enclosing B and E’s signed reports (with their permission). The authors were informed, and wrote a letter expressing their outrage that the journal had contacted the research ethics committees. It proved difficult to identify contact details for the research ethics committees that approved the intervention part of the study. Should the editors do more? Should the authors be asked to provide full details of their research ethics committees now and in the future?
建议:
_在编辑去研究伦理委员会之前，应该先联系作者，让作者对提出的疑问做出回应。_写信给作者所在机构，检查研究伦理委员会的批准程序是否正确进行。_研究伦理委员会对潜在不道德研究的批准会牵连到雇主，因此很难首先向雇主提出这些问题。_开放的同行评议政策需要明确:它在任何时候都是开放的，除非在涉嫌不当行为的情况下。_请作者回答对论文的质疑。(编辑们回到了伦理委员会，想重新审查这些文章。他们对作者有保密义务吗?)_理想情况下，伦理委员会应该直接联系作者。如果作者拒绝发送文章，那么伦理委员会能够审查工作的公共利益将证明违反编辑-作者保密规定是合理的。但是编辑应该通知作者任何这样的行为。_在公众利益允许的情况下，编辑违反编辑-作者保密协议的意愿应该明确。 _ Authors may not be aware of this fact and some rely on a lack of communication between journals to perpetrate duplicate submission and publication. _ It is usually the case that where the author is open about papers and their submission to another journal, that there are legitimate reasons to send the other papers elsewhere and sufficient differences in the papers to justify separate publication. _ In North America there was a fear of litigation arising out of such cases, but following the Tarasoff case, where it was held that the duty to warn and protect identifiable third party interests overrides a duty of confidentiality, a breach of confidentiality can be justified. In Belgium the duty of confidentiality is absolute, but there is no EU law on the issue.
一份文件已被接受，有待修订，该文件利用了政府关于某一年龄组在20年期间所报告的健康反应的官方信息。其中两位作者是学者，另外两位在政府卫生部门工作。当修订到达时，后两位作者的名字不见了。其中一人解释说，他们无法与前两位作者就修改意见达成一致，这似乎很奇怪，因为他们可能已经同意了原始版本，随后的更改很小。主要作者说，修订版的出版可能会导致重大的公共卫生恐慌，因为结论的措辞很可能误导媒体将因果关系归因于实际上的关联。持不同政见者被邀请写一篇评论，详细说明他们的反对意见。第一作者同意了，但随后，一位高级官员打电话给编辑，指出了卫生部门的担忧。这位官员向编辑保证，他/她无意压制研究，但要求编辑考虑可能对公众利益产生的影响。这位官员不想让这些少年写评论。在一次科学会议上，学术部门的负责人对编辑进行了压制，并解释说他/她也担心被误解的风险，但他/她不能干预，因为他/她是控制研究中使用的数据库的政府监管机构的成员，因此存在利益冲突。 Consequently the head of department had asked the vice chancellor, who luckily had a relevant qualification in the area, to intervene instead. The editor was informed that the senior author might have contacted a politician, requesting a parliamentary question be raised, if the data were suppressed, although this has not been confirmed. The chairman of the regulatory body then contacted the editor, also expressing support for academic freedom, but urging great caution. The editor believed the real message was that the database concerned was an inadequate method of determining safety in the area it purported to cover, rather than the stated message, which was that certain adverse reactions had caused deaths. Concerned that the pressure exerted had tainted his judgement, the editor sought the advice of an independent reviewer, who largely agreed with him. The editor then discussed the whole issue with the authors and suggested ways to rewrite the paper, such that the data were protected, but also that the public interest was best served. Not surprisingly, the authors had been put under pressure, but agreed to consider the editor’s suggestions in a further revision. The editor wrote a commentary to accompany the article, which was directed at the media. Despite the anxieties of the authors’ superiors, the paper attracted little media attention. The editor felt largely untouchable, because he is not a health service employee, but other editors who are might find similar pressure difficult to deal with.