数据

从PubMed 1995年至2000年间对370篇出版物的搜索中，随机选择了16篇论文，由同一位作者完成。两篇论文几乎完全相同，只是导言段落和作者名单的形式不同。两份出版物都不承认对方。另一篇论文报道了“第二个发表的案例”，随后的两篇论文报道了同一个“第二个”案例，没有提及先前发表的论文。课文也很相似。

一份手稿是从一组作者那里收到的，这些作者以前没有提交过有关的期刊。这篇评论非常批评，论文被拒绝了。在一封求职信中，评审员说，不仅实验设计有缺陷，而且他还确信所描述的实验从未做过。

几年前，一家杂志发表了一篇论文，后来根据开展这项工作的大学的建议，不得不收回这篇论文。该大学没有提供更多细节，但承诺会这样做。两年后，他们确认该报应该收回，但没有透露到底出了什么问题以及是否有人受到了惩罚。随后，其中一位作者写信给《华尔街日报》，表示担心没有提供更全面的解释。

A randomised controlled trial submitted to a journal showed that a nutritional supplement could dramatically improve one aspect of the health of the elderly. The study was a follow up to a trial reported in an international journal eight years previously. Why had there been so much delay? Why were the results reported in this study not reported in the previous study? There was only one author and, if true, the results were extremely dramatic. The paper was sent for statistical review.

对一组相对较新的药物的有效性进行了系统综述。这项审查最初是为一个独立机构进行的，因此提交的是一份删节本。一位评论员指出，这篇评论没有提及Cochrane的评论和它引用的试验，这些评论是在论文提交给《华尔街日报》之前大约四个月发表的。

2000年3月，作者A代表一个国家筛选计划向《X杂志》提交了一封研究信。他还向《Y》杂志提交了一篇关于同一主题的委托编辑。同时，作者A将两篇文章的副本发送给B，B是一个公认的权威。他明确表示，他们是机密，并在新闻界，并要求一些资料，对测试所使用的B，他可以包括在社论。

一项随机对照试验引起了三个方面的关注：1.研究开始时参与者的身体特征列在一个表格中。干预组和对照组的一项身体特征作为平均值± 标准差（SDs）。然而，两组的抑郁自评量都比他们应该的要小得多。2.纳入标准异常。这排除了一半的合格人口。3.

一项研究声称是刺激系统tematic review that had already been published in the journal. The new study included 15 patients who had been treated in one arm of a study and 15 who had been treated in another arm. The peer reviewers noticed that the original systematic review included 31 patients from the same authors. The editor contacted the authors asking them to make clear whether this was a new study or a presentation of existing data.

在发表了一份来自同一作者的随机对照试验后，收到了一封信，信中的通讯员暗示最初的试验可能是欺诈性的。首先，作者声称只有一位作者能够进行前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验的可能性很小，尤其是在一家小型地区医院。记者还担心没有提及其他标准治疗方法。

Three papers concerning one hospital problem had been submitted to three different journals. Before publication the three editors of the journals became aware of the three different papers and the substantial overlap between them. The three editors communicated with each other and realised that they had four concerns: 1. There was very considerable overlap among the three papers. There didn’t seem to be any justification for publishing three papers rather than one or two. 2.