期刊管理

X博士要求发表的一份声明中,信中他与另外两位作者发表在《不是基于任何他所做的工作,但在他的同事。编辑问另两位作者为什么他们签署了一份版权形式在这种情况下。两位作者表示,他们没有签署任何这样的形式,当面对一个副本,声称他们的签名是伪造的。信也发给博士X,邀请他来解释,但还没有收到任何回复。其他作者说的第一个他们知道发表这封信当医院同事告诉他们。这促使内部查询。医疗主任表示,它仍将是一个内部问题提供X博士联系安排出版《华尔街日报》发表的一项声明中称,这项工作在他的名字作为第一作者不是他,和他写的所有期刊工作是引用的,请求将采取类似的行动。写这封信的时候,X博士是一个员工等级的医生在医院他随后任命一位顾问在医院B和医院已经成为一个顾问C医院C约30英里远离医院a - X博士现任雇主应通知的事件或医院的行为应该被认为是足够的吗?- X博士的监督管理机构应通知的事件吗?

几年后一个案例系列出版的时候,一个记者有严重不当行为的指控联系了编辑器。这些指控是:道德没有获得批准,在报纸上声明相反;,报道研究完成的掩护下伦理批准授予不同的研究——在报纸上声明相反,参与者被连续提到,他们,事实上,邀请参加。——孩子们报道也另一个项目的一部分,由合法渠道。——这项研究的结果传递给律师在发表前。-一个重要的金融通讯作者的利益冲突,从而影响了判断当时的纸做的,没有宣布的编辑器。——《华尔街日报》展开了调查与作者的知识,结合机构,进行了研究。这个总结前两个的指控都是毫无根据的。但未披露利益冲突的指控是支持。十的13个共同作者随后发布了一个局部收缩和国家监管机构调查的开始。

一位作者在杂志上发表了一篇文章在今年年底写建议,它将不得不收回了,理由是他的博士导师,X教授,已经提交了一份类似的手稿更比一年前另一个杂志。没有任何联系的导师,作者认为这个手稿没有接受并继续自己的提交。然后,她解释说,一些个人和职业的问题分散了她一段时间,在那之后她的博士导师告诉她,他的手稿被接受而在其他地方发表。漫长的审查过程造成了严重的延误,因为它是第一次提交,他说。第二篇论文发表后两个月。写信者和X教授列出作者在论文。期刊的版权转让形式显示X教授是一个缔约国,因此知道纸是在考虑。

一篇论文提交给国际医学期刊综述了外部和作者随后被邀请提交修改后的版本。最初提交包括作者从两个不同的研究机构和企业赞助一个作者。最初的提交是伴随着一个适当的描述个人作者的贡献,负面的利益冲突声明和一个适当的确认。修订后的手稿提交时,求职信表示,符合要求的修正和与国际医学期刊编辑委员会的作者的定义,作者已经修改的列表,但这个修正案可能重新谈判,如果编辑团队认为必要的。修正案涉及的所有作者的第二两个研究机构,使作者(丈夫和妻子)从第一个研究机构和资助者。第二个研究机构是现在只承认部分中提到。利益冲突声明也被改变了修订,说明剩下的作者曾提出专利申请中描述的技术的手稿。文章随后re-reviewed内部和外部,进一步修订手稿被邀请并相应地提交。最终版本的论文发表。在验证阶段,第二个研究机构的资深作者联系《华尔街日报》询问稿件的进展。 During the course of this discussion it became clear that neither he nor his colleagues were aware that they were no longer authors, nor that the paper had been accepted for publication. On their instigation an investigation was initiated by the appropriate authority at the first research institution, and subsequently by the federal government, because the second research institution had received government funding for the project. On discovering the authorship dispute, the journal cancelled the planned publication and informed the corresponding author that the authorship dispute would have to be resolved before publication could be considered. The remaining authors at the time of acceptance initially refused to cooperate with the investigation and formally withdrew the manuscript. They also requested that the journal should not communicate with the authors who had been removed and should not provide a copy of the revised manuscript to any external party. The journal cooperated with the investigations and released information on the paper despite this request.

大量study-parts已发表在几个主要期刊——传说表明,药物可以减少副作用X没有代理通过一个重要的中间过程y这表明药物可能具有重要的优势相似的药物,在它的阶级,实际上它已经上市。但是批评家认为该药物可能确实通过中间过程Y,但这掩盖了药物的方式。这不是主要的论文中描述,但现在已经回顾了相对次要的研究。编辑已初步同意评论家考虑出版的一篇论文,讨论了机制,但已经很难找到试验协议的信息。——可能作者故意误导读者不描述药物的路线?——这相当于欺骗吗?

杂志有两个事件未经允许在研究中使用了一个问卷调查问卷调查的发起者。手稿起源于不同的国家,使用不同的问卷调查。1。提交一份手稿,解决生活质量问题。裁判有各种担心数据和方法,和作者应邀修改手稿。此时作者联系发起人的问卷翻译和使用,请求许可使用问卷和要求援助与裁判的问题发现问题。没有征得同意翻译和使用问卷之前。问卷的创造者反对它的使用在这个特殊的研究中,它使用未经批准的翻译。文化特定的翻译显然是可用的。主要担心的是,一个不恰当的翻译可能会导致潜在错误在这项研究中,以及适当的担忧和合法性的研究。 The editor contacted the author, highlighting the concerns of the questionnaire’s originator, and the author chose to withdraw the manuscript. No other action has been taken to date. 2. A submitted manuscript reported a study based on a specific, validated questionnaire. One of the referees pointed out that the centre where the study had been conducted was not registered as an approved centre for this survey, and that neither the relevant Steering Committee nor the relevant International Data Centre had any contact with the authors. The survey’s publication policy states that non-registered centres may not use the acronym. The manuscript was rejected on the basis of poor science, and the authors recommended to contact the survey, regarding registration and for permission to use the questionnaire.

案例报告提交给杂志,描述一个非常严重的患者,可治愈的传染病曾给补充医学(植物提取物),而不是标准的治疗。一个搜索的文献表明,作者是支持补充疗法。替代治疗没有证据基础。此案发生在一个国家的标准治疗是容易。作者报道,病人知情同意,但没有提供任何细节。未被提及的伦理委员会批准实验治疗。尤其是编辑质疑的可接受性:1。开一个新的疗法,没有证据的有效性,为传染病治疗的;2。处方实验治疗没有伦理委员会批准; 3. how well the patient was informed. A full review of the manuscript echoed these concerns. The authors were asked to confirm/explain if they had received informed consent from the patient and ethics committee approval. They were also asked to clarify the treatment plan. In a brief email, the authors stated that they had received both consent from the patient and ethics committee approval, but after several chases, have failed to send the corresponding documents. The authors also stated that the patient was started on the standard treatment course “3 weeks later. ”The manuscript was rejected. Should the editors take further action? Does the fact that the authors advise that the patient was given standard therapy make any difference?

提交的一篇论文报道的调查和管理疾病的爆发在工作环境中(公司)。作者承认提到医生从workplace-who拒绝了法律建议上市公司作为一个作家,也宣布,第一作者为报酬公司提供医疗咨询相关法律诉讼期间爆发在文章中讨论。提交文章时,爆发的公司之间的法律诉讼,在疫情发生,和该公司提供所谓的疫情的病原体(公司B)。第一作者已与公司签订了保密协议关于他/她的诉讼证据,而不是已知的任何信息向公众通过作者的没有错。作者还添加了一个手写的附录,声明他/她接受了协议”在某种程度上,我的学术自由报告发现的科学和公共卫生重要性不是妥协。“在同行评审的科学论文被评为声音。《华尔街日报》的出版法律顾问有一些担忧;法律诉讼活动;工作场所的医生虽然涉及科学不是列为作者;爆发,论述了从A公司的角度来看,这篇文章有说服力的和客观的公司,没有爆发的信息对B公司的知识。支持公司B的解决的,那么这篇文章需要反映这一点。编辑写信给作者,继电保护的法律问题和告诉他们,杂志,法律意见的基础上,不能发布,而诉讼还在进行中。《华尔街日报》表示,将考虑修订版本的手稿后得到解决。 The authors submitted a revised version of the article. As part of the revisions, the authors had deleted all references to the names and locale of the companies. The legal proceedings had been concluded with an out of court settlement; the lead author had no involvement in this. The terms of the settlement are subject to a confidentiality clause and it is not known whether liability was admitted or not. Company A does not wish the paper to be published on the grounds that this would violate the confidentiality agreement between the two parties. On the basis of legal advice from his/her institution, the author states that s/he is not bound by an agreement to which s/he was not party; that the handwritten clause in his/her agreement with Company A allows for publication of the article; and that the details of the outbreak were public as they had been presented in abstract form as well as briefly described in a local language publication. The lead author feels that the journal’s reluctance to publish on the basis of legal concerns is flawed. As originally relayed to the author, it was stated that the journal could be seen as “taking sides” in an ongoing legal dispute—a view that the author feels is “ethically unacceptable. ” Company A is threatening legal action against the authors if details of the case are published, and Company B would also potentially have an action for defamation. What should be done?

Somebody-possibly制药公司的代表或公关代理company-rang编辑代表研究的作者说,她将保证购买1000再版《华尔街日报》将继续考虑发表的一项研究,矛盾与《华尔街日报》刚刚推出的政策。“和”,她说,“我将给你买一个你选择在任何餐厅晚餐。“论文被拒绝,但进一步的行动应该采取吗?

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.