提交的论文详细消极experiences of overseas doctors applying for a training post in a district general hospital was poorly presented and scientifically weak, but on a topic of great interest and importance. The study consisted of an analysis of the CVs of the applicants and an analysis of responses to questionnaires sent to them with their rejection letters. Over a third of the questionnaires were returned. The editors were concerned that the authors had used the applicants’ CVs without their permission, and that the applicants were unaware that they would be used for reasons other than a job application. The CVs were not anonymised before the authors analysed them. And the study did not seem to have been submitted for ethical review. The thinking was that the overseas doctors might have been subtly pressurised to complete the questionnaire. In response to these concerns, the authors said that the study had been approved by the human resources department, who "own" the CVs, and the postgraduate tutor, who is responsible for pre-registration house officers. The study had also been informally submitted to the local research ethics committee whose view was that as it was an audit formal ethical approval was not warranted. The authors added that they did not ask for "permission" from the doctors as they felt implicit in the questionnaire was the fact that their answers would be used as part of the audit. The questionnaire was completely anonymous, they said, so to have asked the doctors “to sign a statement would have destroyed feelings of confidentiality which we felt were so important to the study.” The authors also enclosed a copy of a letter from their director of personnel and development in support of the above. The editors also wrote to the postgraduate dean and the chairman of the research ethics committee. The postgraduate dean replied that he was not aware of any formal approach for approval of the study, although he acknowledged that the postgraduate clinical tutors operate with a high degree of autonomy. The dean also stated that, in his opinion, the work was research and not audit. The chairman of the local research ethics committee wrote: “The part of the study involving sending questionnaires to the unsuccessful applicants was essentially research. …If consulted, we would probably have suggested that this part of the study required ethical approval. Individual consent would not have been required. However, the collection of individual comments may well have met with a different response. It is likely that we would have requested that further information outlining the purpose of the study and details of potential dissemination would have been required. We are not in a position to give retrospective ethical approval for research. We felt it was important that this information, having been obtained in good faith, should not be wasted. There was, however, concern that such a retrospective study, without adequate scientific scrutiny, may have introduced biases.”
An author who published an article in Journal A at the end of the year wrote to advise that it would have to be retracted on the grounds that his PhD tutor, Professor X, had already submitted a similar manuscript more than a year earlier to another journal. In the absence of any contact from the tutor, the author had assumed that this manuscript had not been accepted and went ahead with her own submission. She then explained that some personal and professional issues had distracted her for some time, after which her PhD tutor told her that his manuscript had indeed been accepted and published elsewhere. The lengthy review process had caused serious delays since it was first submitted, he said. The second paper was published two months after the first. The letter writer and Professor X are listed as authors on both the papers. The copyright assignment form for Journal A shows that Professor X was a signatory and therefore knew that the paper was under consideration.