A manuscript was submitted about prenatal diagnosis of a specific cardiac disease. Short case reports of four babies who died were included. Although there are no names, we believe that there are sufficient details about the particular baby being described to be identified by the parents and by those involved in their care. The authors argue that:
Clearly the authors are pleading that they should be allowed to use these case histories on the basis of the best interests of the community.
Is the blanket ethical approval sufficient for us to publish these short case histories, or do the authors need permission from the parents of the children who died?
Advice:
The Forum’s view was that it is for the editor to decide whether or not he considers that the ethics approval, as obtained in this case, was sufficient. The editor is not bound by the decision of the ethics committee. Many journals take the view that if there is any possibility that the case can be identified, then consent is necessary, and will not publish case reports if consent from the patients or parents is not obtained. If it is impossible to obtain consent, the editor may decide that it is in the public interest to publish the case, but he or she would have to be prepared to justifiy their decision. The Forum questioned the relevance of the case reports and whether the cases could be summarised, omitting all case details. The general consensus was the it was up to the editor to make the final decision and that he should consider the relevance of publishing all of the details of the cases rather than just a summary.
The editors received an unsolicited systematic review and the paper was assessed for suitability for peer review, as is the usual procedure for this journal. The editor who assessed the manuscript noticed similarities with a systematic review published in the same journal last year and investigated the extent of overlap further.
即使重写,editors would not be interested in sending this paper out for peer review as there would not be enough new material to represent a sufficient advance beyond the previously published review. However, the editors wanted to ensure that the authors are aware of the seriousness of plagiarism and that the paper is not published in its current form in another journal.
The editor contacted the corresponding author to inform him/her that overlap in the text had been noticed and asked in a neutral way for an explanation. The corresponding author replied that owing to language difficulties and intensive reading of papers on this topic, the format and wording might be more or less the same as in the previous review. The editor has responded to the corresponding author, acknowledging the language difficulties and explaining the seriousness of plagiarism and that it is an unacceptable practice. The editors also informed him/her that they do not wish to consider this paper further.
如果编辑人员采取进一步的行动 - 例如，通知作者机构关于抄袭的机构吗？
Advice:
The Forum agreed that the editor had acted correctly and there was probably little else that could be done. The Forum commented that the misconduct was likely based on ignorance rather than malice and that the authors may have misunderstood what was required. All agreed that the authors should be educated rather than chastised. The general consensus was that no further action was required.