案例摘要
因为数据杂志拒绝两个手稿fabrication, as confirmed by an inspection of the original patient data. Without the lead author knowing, the co-authors had fabricated the dataset after recruiting only a few patients. The lead author was cleared of misconduct in an institutional investigation but later published one of the manuscripts and other suspicious manuscripts in other journals.
应对论坛的问题
• Should other journals be warned about this case?
•是否有任何其他人会被告知此案？
Forum Advice
The Forum suggested that the journal editor contact the journal that published the similar manuscript, following the COPE guidelines titled “关于可能的不当行为的编辑主任之间的信息分享信息“。但是，编辑不应指对领先作者的不满，以避免可能的法律问题，如诽谤。
案例讨论
此存档的应对论坛案例分类为COPE核心实践数据和再现性，哪些州：“期刊应包括数据可用性的政策，并鼓励根据其纪律的标准实践使用临床试验和其他研究设计的报告指南和注册。”bob官方app案件的内容和核心实践可能最初表明只能与医学出版中的政策和流程相关联。但是，它们适用于收集数据的所有学科，并对期刊（以及其他学术出版物（如书籍和会议诉讼），作者/研究人员及其机构有影响。
This case illustrates that a journal editor has the authority to request time-stamped original (raw or primary) data files, including associated data sources and records if practicable, in order to check that a submitted manuscript is based on sound evidence. Although data are commonly numerical, digital, or code, or converted into those formats, data sources can be textual, pictorial, or in any other media, and can arguably be any source used or referred to, including recordings/transcripts, artefacts, instrument printouts, and any cited published or unpublished material. By asking for access to files or materials underlying the scholarship of a manuscript, an editor is asking authors “to show their working”. The journal guidelines should make this policy clear, and authors should archive all findings and data files in case a journal editor or editor’s representative requests access during manuscript review or after publication.
Because journals have limited resources to police every aspect of a manuscript, they need to mainly rely on authors’ honesty. Some journals ask for specific declarations that data were obtained and used ethically and legally and that authors themselves had full access to the data during analysis and manuscript preparation. If an editor or reviewer has suspicions that data in a submitted paper are too good to be true or an illustration has been manipulated, raw data files or data sources may need to be inspected to verify analyses and data integrity. Data inspections may also be needed if a reader or other whistleblower notifies an editor about suspicious data or illustrations in a published article. Journals may need to call on specialists to investigate or may invite the authors’ institutions to launch an investigation. Relevant COPE flowcharts are “如果您怀疑制造的数据，该怎么办：（a）在提交的稿件中涉嫌制造的数据“，”如果您怀疑制造数据：（b）在发布的稿件中涉嫌制造的数据“， 和 ”如果您怀疑已发布的文章中的图像操纵，该怎么办“。
编辑可以在清楚的情况下自动拒绝提交的稿件（组成）或伪造（改变或部分删除），以及数据处理/分析中有明显的主要错误，或者提交人无法生产相关数据文件或材料。这一步骤有助于维持研究和学术纪录的完整性。如果编辑怀疑数据是欺诈性的（例如，制造，伪造，抄袭或在未经许可的情况下使用），那么也应在中立术语中通知机构，如“Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity Cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)“。如果只有相应（领导）作者的机构联系或所有作者都在同一机构，则目前尚不清楚。所有作者和作者的机构都应了解提交结果和理由。这一步骤应该迅速提示机构纪律调查和内部改进研究流程，数据管理和策划以及出版伦理的培训。
这种情况还说明，如果编辑器注意到从先前拒绝的纸张的欺诈性数据的其他位置通知，编辑允许互相联系以讨论对数据完整性的疑虑。对同行审查保养保密的例外应在日记指南中解释，如“bob官方app关于可能的不当行为的编辑主任之间的信息分享信息“。已发布文章的编辑只需要在以前拒绝的纸质中获取有关欺诈数据集的中性条款，并且可以在流程图后联系相应的作者然后机构。如果您怀疑制造数据：（b）在发布的稿件中涉嫌制造的数据“。但是，拒绝第一个稿件的编辑必须相信使用相同的欺诈数据集。如果对其他公布的文章也是如此，那么可以了解其他编辑器关于欺诈性数据集，以及冗余出版物或萨拉米分切的可能问题。
A precaution that editors can take is, for manuscripts on human studies, to insist on study preregistration in a registry database before the research was conducted and written up. In that way, protocols and analyses (and, subsequently, participant recruitment/flow and basic results) that have been uploaded to a registry can be compared with those later reported in the manuscript. Study preregistration is required by some funders and many journals for prospective clinical trials, such as randomised controlled trials. Note that randomised controlled trials can be non-medical – for example, some educational or economic intervention studies – and not all registries are medical ones (seehttps://osf.io/refisties.）。人类参与者的观察研究也可以在注册表数据库中预先预测。
Study preregistration aims to help maintain the integrity of the research record by decreasing publication bias and increasing transparency and reproducibility. The same reasons underlie the option of “registered reports” (peer review and acceptance-in-principle of a protocol before the results are known) that is now being offered by journals in many different disciplines (seehttps://cos.io/rr/）。通过使用国际报告指南，也可以鼓励完整和透明的报告，这可以适用于涉及人类或动物研究的许多研究类型和学科（见bob官方apphttp://www.equator-network.org/）。
最后，但并非最不重要的是，增加对其他研究人员的数据可用性是越来越多的研究资助者的目标，特别是public funders，包括那些social sciences and humanities。作为开放数据的一部分，开放式访问和开放研究/科学运动，资助者和机构通常需要研究人员制定和实施数据管理计划，以优化保护和共享研究数据。期刊也越来越鼓励研究人员公开分享别人的主要数据，以验证，重用和引用。数据描述文章，数据期刊和数据存储库是直接帮助研究人员公开共享数据和元数据的场所。如果呈现案件结束时提到的任何期刊已与存储库中的欺诈数据集或作为补充文件相关联，则编辑器必须要求主导作者正式缩回数据集的所有上载的副本。
虽然所有期刊都应向作者解释，但是在任何时候都可以在任何时间考虑原始数据进行检查，并非所有期刊可能需要更广泛地分享原始数据，如下所示资助研究on journal data-sharing policies across disciplines (presented在2017年同行评审大会上）。实际上，数据共享的不同级别和条件是可能的，如图所示透明度和开放性促销（顶部）指南bob官方app。数据可用性的程度，时序和持续时间;适当的数据存储库和许可;稿件中的数据引用和数据可用性的要求都可以依赖于纪律，分级式，数据类型，期刊和资助者。如在a中解释2018年COPE网络研创建和实施研究数据策略，期刊办公室需要决定并清楚他们的数据共享政策，应该提供哪些数据，以及何时何地归档数据。例如，Scientific Data和PLOS期刊mandate data sharing (with allowable exceptions) and comprehensively list recommended repositories by subject. The journal editor first mentioned in the presented case could readily notice similar cases of fraudulent data if the journal were to mandate data sharing and submission of a dataset along with the manuscript. However, the editor would have to also initiate a sustainable and reliable system for the对等数据审查。
特雷弗里代表COPE教育小组委员会
读2019年10月消化新闻通讯专注于数据和再现性，并在德国·佩德拉·佩德·洛杉矶议员的欧洲研讨会综述。我们还分享新的COPE作者作者讨论文件，并宣布我们的11月论坛讨论“决策中的人工智能”。我们说再见，谢谢六名我们举行的六名成员，他们已经完成了他们的任期。加上应对会议会员的新闻的每月更新。