Información de la revista
Vol. 21. Núm. 6.
Páginas 492-499 (Noviembre - Diciembre 2007)
Respuestas rápidas
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 21. Núm. 6.
Páginas 492-499 (Noviembre - Diciembre 2007)
Revisiones
Open Access
Misconduct by researchers and authors
Malas prácticas de investigadores y autores
Visitas
...
Harvey Marcovitch??
Autor para correspondencia
h.marcovitch@btinternet.com

Correspondence: Harvey Marcovitch. Syndication editor, BMJ Publishing Group. Chairman, Committee on Publication Ethics.
Syndication editor, BMJ Publishing Group, Chairman, Committee on Publication Ethics, London, United Kingdom
Este artículo ha recibido
No disponible
Visitas
(Actualización diaria de datos)

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Abstract

Most scientific research is conducted properly and reported honestly but a few authors invent or manipulate data to reach fraudulent conclusions. Other types of misconduct include deliberately providing incomplete or improperly processed data, failure to follow ethical procedures, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of patient confidentiality, improper award or denial of authorship, failure to declare competing interests, duplicate submission and plagiarism. Editors, peer reviewers and publishers may also act wrongly. Good practice guidelines are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (The Vancouver Group) and the Council of Science Editors, amongst others. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides flowcharts to assist editors deal with authorial misconduct. Examples are provided of cases involving epidemiological or public health research, reported to COPE over the last 9 years. Suggestions are offered as to how misconduct might be handled in future.

Key words:
Scientific misconduct
Ethics
Journals
Research
Resumen

Aunque la mayor parte de la investigación científica se realiza y comunica de manera honesta, algunos pocos autores inventan o manipulan los datos para obtener conclusiones fraudulentas. Hay, además, otros tipos de malos comportamientos, como proporcionar deliberadamente información incompleta o mal procesada, vulnerar la confidencialidad de los pacientes, atribuir o denegar improcedentemente la autoría, no declarar algún conflicto de interés, publicar de forma duplicada y el plagio. Los editores y revisores externos también pueden actuar erradamente. El Comité Internacional de Directores de Revistas Médicas (el Grupo de Vancouver) y el Consejo de Editores Científicos han elaborado guías de buena práctica. El Comité de Ética en Publicación proporciona diagramas para ayudar a los editores a afrontar los casos de mal comportamiento. En este trabajo se comentan algunos casos prácticos de mala práctica en investigación en epidemiología y salud pública de entre los abordados por el Comité de Ética de publicación durante los últimos 9 años. Se presentan además sugerencias para tratar estas situaciones en el futuro.

Palabras clave:
Malas prácticas
Ética
Publicaciones
Investigación
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[1.]
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication (updated February 2006) [accessed 7.5.2007]. Available from: http://www.icjme.org/
[2.]
Scott-Lichter D and the editorial policy committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston Va: CSE;2006 [accessed 7.5.2007]. Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf
[3.]
Committee on Publication Ethics Flowcharts (14) [accessed 7.5.2007] Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/flow-charts/cope-flowcharts-optimal.pdf/download
[4.]
R.B. Singh, S.S. Rastogi, R. Verma, L. Bolaki, R. Singh.
An Indian experiment with nutritional modulation in acute myocardial infarction.
Am J Cardiol, 69 (1992), pp. 879-885
[5.]
C. White.
Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth.
[6.]
M. Meguid.
Retraction of: Chandra RK.
Nutrition, 17 (2001), pp. 709-712
[7.]
C. Dyer.
Consultant struck off over research fraud.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 205-210
[8.]
D. Adam, J. Knight.
Publish and be damned.
Nature, 419 (2002), pp. 772-776
[9.]
J. Lexchin, L.A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic, O. Clark.
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:systematic review.
BMJ, 326 (2003), pp. 1167-1170
[10.]
E. Von Elm, D.G. Altman, M. Egger, S.J. Pocock, P.C. Gotzsche, J.P. Vanderbroucke.
Strobe Initiative Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
[12.]
Rossner M. Digital Images and Misconduct. In: Scott-Lichter D, and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Reston, Va: CSE; 2006 [accessed 3.5.2007]. Available from: http://councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/3-4_digital.cfm
[13.]
P.C. Swain.
Closing some legal loopholes in the peer-review process in Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, September 1997.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 213-302
[14.]
A. Flanagin, L.A. Carey, P.B. Fontanarosa, S.G. Phillips, B.P. Pace, G.D. Lundberg, et al.
Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed journals.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 222-224
[15.]
A. Jacobs, E. Wager.
European Medical Writers Association guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.
Curr Med Res Opin, 21 (2005), pp. 317-321
[16.]
A. Hussain, R. Smith.
Declaring financial interests: survey of five general medical journals.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 263-264
[17.]
J.E. Bekelman, Y. Li, C.P. Gross.
Scope and impact of financial conflict of interest in biomedical research:a systematic review.
JAMA, 289 (2003), pp. 454-465
[18.]
M.R. Tramér, D.J. Reynolds, R.A. Moore, H.J. McQuay.
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: case study.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 635-640
[19.]
I. Chalmers.
Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak.
[20.]
Complacency about misconduct. Nature. 2004;427:1.
[21.]
Revill J. How the drugs giant and a lone academic went to war [accessed 8.5.2007]. Available from: http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,9860,1658042,00.html
[22.]
J. Sudbo, J.J. Lee, S.M. Lippman, J. Mork, S. Sagen, N. Flatner, et al.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study.
Lancet, 366 (2005), pp. 1359-1366
[23.]
Ekbom A, Helgesen GEM, Lunde T, Tverdal A, Vollser SE. Report from the Investigation Commission appointed by Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet MC and the University of Oslo, January 18, 2006 [accessed 3.5.2007]. English translation at: http://www.rikshospitalet.no/content/res_bibl/6876.pdf
Copyright © 2007. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria

Suscríbase a la newsletter

Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?