数据和再现性

一群六作者发表在同行评议的期刊上发表的一项研究中,比较两种药物的功效相同的类(A和B)和安慰剂。一年后那项研究的第一作者是在Medline寻找新的证据在药物的疗效,发现一项研究被发表在另一个同行评议的杂志今年后三个作者来自另一个国家。作者改变了病人的数量,类型的手术,药物的方案,他们添加了第四组(药物C)。然而,第一篇论文的作者确定两者之间的相似之处的出版物。仔细阅读这两篇论文编辑后得出了以下的结论:1。大部分的第二篇论文使用字面意思相同的句子和用词第一。这个问题的所有部分。唯一重要的“新”的句子,主要是在讨论,在药物的作用2。第二篇论文引用了27个引用,17日是相同的在第一篇论文的引用。的“新”引用,六是药物C,和两个问题上与手术有关。3所示。 Demographic and surgical data, reported as means ± SD, numbers, or medians (range) of drug A, drug B, and placebo groups are identical in the two papers. The only differences between the two papers concern type of surgery, and the method of postoperative analgesia (two different analgesics are used). Also, the first paper reported on the estimated drug costs; the second did not. 4. Reported postoperative VAS pain scores (median and ranges) of drug A, drug B, and placebo groups are identical in the two papers at five of five time points. 5. In the second paper demographic data and pain scores of the drug C and drug B groups are identical. 6. The reported statistical analyses are identical, including the “ranked sum test of Raatz, ” a test that is very rarely if ever used in the medical literature. 7. Power analyses are identical. However, the authors of the first paper concluded that 43 patients per group were required; the authors of the second paper concluded from the same power analysis that 17 patients were needed. 8. In the second paper, the reported incidences of nausea and vomiting with drugs A, B, and placebo are sometimes identical and sometimes different from those reported in the first paper. 9. For all drug A vs placebo, drug B vs placebo, and drug A vs drug B comparisons, the p values for efficacy are identical in the two papers. 10. Both papers report an astonishing p<0. 000006 in favour of drug A compared with placebo for the difference in the incidence of vomiting. Both papers use Fisher’s exact test for analysing differences in the incidence. 11. Both papers report a p<0. 009 in favour of drug A compared with placebo for the difference in the incidence of nausea. 12. The second paper cites the first paper twice, once in the introduction and once in the discussion. Both citations are out of any context. According to the Royal College of Physician of London (1991), this represents serious scientific misconduct as it is about piracy, plagiarism, and fraud. It is very likely that actually all the data in both papers have been made up. The authors have copied the results of the statistical analyses (and the power calculation) of the first report into their new report, without even realising that some of the analyses in the original report were flawed. How should the editor proceed with this case?

三位作者的评论,X为第一作者,博士发表在《A。五个月后,被告知教授W杂志的编辑,一个图的审核由X博士最初出现在一份研究报告,由教授在1990 W杂志B。教授还说,X博士发表了相同或非常相似的人物期刊C, D(研究论文)和E(审查)。《论文参考5在《评论》杂志上。X博士否认他“偷”图。然而,后一个“专家评审”杂志C得出的数据是相同的,该杂志的编辑们收回了X博士的论文。X博士已经开始法律诉讼的一个杂志的编辑c W教授是推动一个完整的收回日报》评论的a . X博士愿意自愿撤回,但他的公司不支持作者,因为问题的图没有区别的没有争议的结论。杂志上发表的一份声明中指出的收缩C》杂志和《E发表了类似的声明。杂志D招募了一位专家来检查教授W的原始病理材料。与这个调查》期刊上。专家认为,数字出版的期刊和D是一样的教授W的原始幻灯片。 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.

一篇论文被接受,等待修改后的版本,使用官方信息报道健康的反应在一个特定的年龄段在20多年的时间。两个作者的学者和两个政府卫生部门的工作。当修订到达时,后者两位作者的名字都没有。其中一个解释说,他们不能达成协议与前两个作者修改,这似乎有点奇怪,他们可能同意原来的版本和随后的变化很小。说,第一作者发表的版本可能会导致一个重大的公共健康恐慌的措辞的结论很可能误导媒体将因果关系实际上是什么。异见人士被邀请写评论,详细叙述他们的反对意见。第一作者同意,但随后,高级官员打电话给编辑,指出卫生部门所关心的问题。官方的保证他/她无意的编辑器抑制研究,但要求编辑考虑可能对公共利益的影响。官方不希望下属写评论。学者的科学部门按钮躲编辑主管会议,解释说,他/她也关注误解的风险但无法干预,因为他/她有一个利益冲突,被政府监管机构的成员控制在这项研究中使用的数据库。 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.

作者A、B和C提交了一篇关于一群医生的行为。所有作者都来自于一个机构,医生的行为研究。作者做了数据收集的监督下作者B,显然是谁负责的设计研究和作为担保人。作者C是一个官方机构。接受修订后,杂志编辑,发出证明。时所有的信件已经与作者B证明到达时,作者B(通讯作者)休假,C表示严重担忧,纸和作者表示,需要重写。在《华尔街日报》看来,这是第一次,C,作者最资深,恰当地看着报纸,尽管作者C随后对此予以否认。作者C几周后提交了修改后的论文。一般是淡化负面影响,增加积极的方面。特别是,C说,原始版本作者误解了一部分新论文的结果和包括一个新的解释。 But there was no supporting evidence. A new author had also appeared. Author D was listed as the corresponding author and guarantor of the paper. Author D’s name had not appeared even in the acknowledgements of the first version. The editor of the journal wrote to author C, asking for an explanation of the change of authorship. He raised the possibility of poor authorship practices. He asked for a written assurance from all the authors that they were happy about the revision, and he asked to see a copy of the questionnaire used and evidence for the new interpretation so that the journal could judge the changes for itself. He also emphasised that, if the journal was satisfied with the changes and the answers on authorship, the journal still wanted to publish the article. The easiest thing for the authors would have been to withdraw the paper—but that would also best serve the desire of the institution to play down the findings. Author C has written two holding replies, refuting the suggestion that there has been any authorial misconduct, and asserting that s/he was involved in the research. According to C, the authors are still debating the appropriate interpretation of the results of the study.

提交一个随机对照试验,表明一个新的治疗,这是一个熟悉的化合物的组合,非常有益的一个常见但很大程度上无法治愈的问题。作者来自几个不同的国家和公司生产的治疗。论文的编辑很难找到审稿人只是返回它,说他们不能产生意见。审稿人是谁最终这样做表示,结果是不可信的,所有的迹象表明,纸是虚假的。统计顾问询问他的意见,,虽然他同意这个结果不太可能,他不相信有任何数据操作。他建议编辑请求的原始数据。编辑们不确定要做什么。他们之前的经验要求原始数据是它涉及高度复杂和昂贵的运动。他们想知道他们应该只是提醒作者的雇主存六个不同的雇主从四个不同的国家,让他们进行调查。编辑们几乎肯定不愿意公布审判。

作者写信给专业杂志的编辑,表明论文已经发表不适当的承认自己是一个作家。在他的信中说,他贡献了超过50%的病例报道。第一作者“不仅偷了我的数据和不经同意发表,也省略了我的名字。“编辑写了论文的作者要求更多的信息,但应采取任何进一步的行动?

16个随机选择的论文检测的搜索PubMed 370出版物之间1995 - 2000由同一作者。两篇论文几乎是相同的,不同的只有引言段落的形式和作者的列表。既不承认其他出版。另一篇论文报告了“第二次以往出版情况”,和两个后续论文报道相同的“第二个”案件没有早些时候发表论文的引用。再次非常相似的文本。随后杂志收到了一篇论文,被拒绝了。除了改变作者的列表,这是相同的两年前发表的一篇论文,在不同的杂志。论文使用相同的标题和介绍也曾在另一个杂志上发表。这可能不会像《检查不可用在任何英国研究图书馆。两个进一步的手稿提交给期刊B,一个信的形式,第二个一个完整的研究报告。 The letter was lifted directly from the paper; furthermore one of the tables was identical to that presented in the paper. A further paper which had originally been rejected was resubmitted to Journal B, albeit slightly expanded, but with an entirely new list of authors. An independent statistician reviewed both papers and found that the content of two tables was identical except for the p values. Many of these had acquired a significance not suggested in the first manuscript. Further to this example and the examination of just a few of the listed publications, clear cases of duplicate publication and attempted duplication were found. It’s worrying that seemingly similar work can have different lists of authors, which suggests “gift” authorship. Changes in details of treatment and statistical significance throws the veracity of some of the work into question. Furthermore, the group’s general failure to cite its own publications suggests a deliberate attempt to cover up duplication. The editor of Journal B wants to inform the author that his publication will not consider any further submissions from this group. There is no guarantee that manuscripts would be original and issues of copyright are unclear. The editor would also like to alert the editors of the other journals involved. Is this a reasonable course of action to take?

手稿是来自一群作者没有在问题提交给《华尔街日报》。复习非常关键,论文被拒绝。求职信的评论家说,不仅是实验设计的缺陷,但他也相信,从未被描述的实验完成。他发现她的扫描Medline 1997 - 2001和其他七个论文的第一作者都有类似的协议,但在每种情况下使用不同的营养补充品。已经进行的所有研究40组受试者给予补充或控制物质的一年。这意味着作者为这些研究招募了300名被试,这是令人难以置信。研究进入标准意味着池的合格科目很小,和协议是严格的,不是说不道德,所以很难获得知情同意。如果有什么区别的话,应对建议做调查疑似欺诈吗?

日记几年前发表了一篇论文,随后不得不收回了,大学的建议的工作已经开展。大学没有提供进一步的细节,但答应这么做。两年后他们证实,本文应该收回,但没有给出确切的信息错了,有没有人已经受到惩罚。随后,作者之一写信给《华尔街日报》表示关注,没有完整的解释。他说他是无辜的,论文的作者之一显然是有罪的。他说,收缩并没有指明所有作者都同样有罪,和他想要发表的收缩,把这个权利。接下来应该做什么?

随机对照试验提交日记表明营养补充剂可以显著提高老年人的健康的一个方面。这项研究是一个跟进试验报告在国际期刊8年前。为什么有这么多延迟?为什么这个研究报告的结果没有报告在前面的研究?只有一个作者,如果这是真的,结果是非常戏剧性的。统计的论文被审查。审稿人建议完全发明的纸上的所有特征。结果是难以置信的巨大的健康问题报告。大学校长被要求调查。