2011年

一位读者联系我们，证明2007年美国美国发表的稿件中的许多Western印迹已被其他公布的论文重复;在一个情况下，在纸张本身中相同的凝胶重复。我比较了原篇论文并同意读者。其他一些印迹也已在其他文件中复制，但所有这些文件都已发表在我们的期刊上发表之前。

一名读者标记为2003年4月在2003年4月在X期刊X中发表的评论文章随后在2004年7月期间出现了一些小组（我们的期刊），然后在Journy Z（其中作者是编辑的期刊）中出现了一些小副作用和删除）2006年9月。

简而言之,如果一个人失去了他们的原始数据,workup data and laboratory books (so that in effect their data cannot be checked/queried/verified/substantiated) what would be the implications of submitting his/her results to a journal? I have a very clear view. I would not do it. However, others seem to think that if you cannot prove that the results are wrong, then they must be accepted on trust. I am hoping that you could point me towards some official ruling.

I received a submission that had asked a series of questions of visitors to a website about a mental health issue. It was reviewed by a senior colleague and myself. While the science was fine we were both concerned that no mention had been made of any ethics approval. I raised this issue with the authors, especially given that deception was involved.

我们的期刊由一家公司的代表联系，该公司接受了一份基于该公司赞助的临床研究的稿件。验收后，高级提交人已将稿件转发给公司的副本，他在研究仍在进行的情况下已经确定了本文所呈现的数据和初步报告之间的一些差异。

稿件已提交给我们的日记，并在运行常规Crosscheck报告时，我们发现它包含了68％的匹配（超过5000个字），并由最近在线发布的作者提供的资助项目的报告。因为相似性匹配如此之高，所以我们拒绝了稿件。

The editors in chief of journal A and journal B, both owned by society C, received a letter from the last ‘senior’ author, also the corresponding author on one of the papers (author D), concerning separate papers published in both journals (paper E published in journal A and paper F published in journal B), informing them that one of the co-authors on both papers is under investigation for scientific fraud. The results of the investigation are expected to take a further 6 months to complete.

在某些情况下，编辑的编辑A使用“仲裁”评论者。这些审稿人建议编辑，例如，编辑程序分为审阅者报告或对基于分歧审阅者报告的决定的反驳。此评论家介绍了其他审稿人的报告，因为他/她都评估了稿件并通过其建议协助编辑抵达一个知情的编辑决策。

遵循文章的出版后，编辑注意到本文报告了临床试验的结果，但本文未列入审判登记详情。（本期刊确实在提交的工作人员仔细检查了审判登记，但本文没有写得很好，而且仔细阅读，努力解决它在临床试验中的报告。

Journal A编辑部A匿名由对两篇论文提出指控的个人联系，两者都由同一作者出版。据称纸张1据称是一份重复的出版物，本文以前发表于B. Journal A的编辑部，根据Cope Flowcharts，联系了提交人向他们通知他们指控并要求回复/解释。