Browse

In the case of a manuscript under consideration that is not yet published in which fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism is suspected, the editor should ask the corresponding author for a written explanation. If an explanation is not provided or is unsatisfactory, the editor should contact the author’s institutional authority (ie, dean, director, ethical conduct/research integrity officer) or governmental agency with jurisdiction to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct to request an investigation. In all such communications with authors and institutional authorities, the editor should take care to maintain confidentiality and should follow the same procedures described in , Editorial Policy and Less

Cases may arise in which an allegation requires the journal editor to have access to the data on which the manuscript or article in question was based. JAMA's authorship statement includes the following language: If requested, I shall produce the data on which the manuscript is based for examination by the editors or their assignees. For discussion of reasonable time limits for which authors should keep their data, see , Intellectual Property: Ownership, Access, Rights, and Management, Ownership and Control of Data. If an author refuses a request for access to the original data, or if the author or the Less

Detection of scientific misconduct in publishing is often the result of the alertness of coworkers and/or other authors of the same manuscript, and much less commonly by editors, peer reviewers, or readers. If an allegation of scientific misconduct is made in relation to a manuscript under consideration or published, the editor has a duty to ensure confidential and timely pursuit of that allegation. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), “If substantial doubts arise about the honesty and integrity of work, either submitted or published, it is the editor’s responsibility to ensure that the question is appropriately Less

Image processing software, such as Adobe Photoshop, has made it relatively easy for authors to manipulate images to highlight a specific outcome or feature by cropping or by adjusting color, brightness, or contrast. These same applications can be used by journal staff to screen digital images for evidence of inappropriate manipulation and fraudulent manipulation., Some enhancements to figures, such as cropping or adjusting color of the entire image, may be appropriate if such manipulations do not alter the interpretation of the original data or omit or obscure important data. However, any manipulation that results in a change in how the Less

Misappropriation in scientific publication includes plagiarism and breaches of confidentiality during the privileged review of a manuscript. (See also , Confidentiality, Confidentiality During Editorial Evaluation and Peer Review and After Publication.) In plagiarism, an author documents or reports ideas, words, data, or graphics, whether published or unpublished, of another as his or her own and without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism of published work violates standards of honesty and collegial trust and may also violate copyright law (if the violation is shown to be legally actionable) (see , Intellectual Property: Ownership, Access, Rights, and Management, Copying, Reproducing, Adapting, and Other Uses Less

Fabrication, falsification, and omission are forms of misrepresentation in scientific publication. Fabrication includes stating or presenting a falsehood and making up data, results, or “facts” that do not exist. Falsification includes manipulation of materials or processes, changing data or results, or altering the graphic display of data or digital images in a manner that results in misrepresentation (see also , Inappropriate Manipulation of Digital Images). Omission is the act of deliberately not reporting certain information for a desired outcome. Data fabrication, falsification, and omission occur when an investigator or author creates, alters, manipulates, selects, or presents selected or fails to Less

UPDATE: We will discontinue using quotation marks to identify parts of an article, but retain the capitalization; eg, This is discussed in the Methods section (not the “Methods” section). This change was made February 14, 2013. After receiving confirmation from the author or authors and/or a report from the author’s institution or other agency indicating that fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism has occurred, the journal should promptly publish a retraction. Preferably this retraction will be a signed letter from the corresponding author and all coauthors. If none of the authors will agree to publish a signed retraction, the editor may request Less

We should ignore whining about the supposedly awful pressures of “publish or perish” when we have little credible evidence on what motivates misconduct, nor on what motivates the conduct of honest, equally stressed colleagues. Laziness, desire for fame, greed, and an inability to distinguish right from wrong are just as likely to be at the root of the problem.    Drummond Rennie In scientific publication, the phrase scientific misconduct (specifically termed research misconduct by US government regulations and commonly known as fraud) has both ethical and legal connotations for authors and editors. A few studies (with limited methodologies) have estimated the prevalence Less