Cited by 53Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Scientific Misconduct and Medical Journals

Open access
Bauchner, Howard, Fontanarosa, Phil B., Flanagin, Annette, Thornton, Joe·2018·JAMA

Abstract

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, "Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." 1 Other important irregularities involving the biomedical research process include, but are not limited to, ethical issues (eg, failure to obtain informed consent, failure to obtain appropriate approval from an institutional review board, and mistreatment of research participants), issues involving authorship responsibilities and disputes, duplicate publication, and failure to report conflicts of interest.When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.2,3 Although not much is known about the prevalence of scientific misconduct, several studies with limited methods have estimated that the prevalence of scientists who have been involved in scientific misconduct ranges from 1% to 2%.[4][5][6] During the last 5 years, JAMA and the JAMA Network journals have published 12 notices of Retraction about 15 articles (including recent Retractions of 6 articles by the same author) 7 and 6 notices of Expression of Concern about 9 articles.These notices were published primarily because the original studies were found to involve fabrication or falsification of data that invalidated the research and the published articles; in some cases, postpublication investigations could not provide evidence that the original research was valid.Since 2015, JAMA and the JAMA Network journals also have retracted and replaced 12 articles for instances of inadvertent pervasive error resulting from incorrect data coding or incorrect analyses and without evidence of research misconduct.8 During the same period, 1021 correction notices have been published in these journals.The JAMA Network policies regarding corrections and retraction with replacement have been published previously.8,9 In this Editorial, the focus is on a more complex and challenging issue-scientific misconduct involving fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the reporting of research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2018.14350

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services. 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93. Public Health Service policies on research misconduct; final rule. Fed Regist. 2005;70(94):28386. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys /pkg/FR-2005-05-17/pdf/05-9643.pdf.
  2. Flanagin A. Scientific misconduct. In: Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007. http: //www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10 .1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med -9780195176339-div1-61. Accessed September 3, 2018. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauchner, H., Fontanarosa, P. B., Flanagin, A., & Thornton, J.
Affiliations
JAMA and the JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois
Corresponding author
Bauchner, Howard
Venue
JAMA
Published
2018-11-20
Volume
320
Issue
19
Pages
1985
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2896776721
Cited by
53
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
research misconduct, medical journals, retraction, expression of concern, data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, research integrity, editorial responsibility
MeSH terms
Periodicals as Topic, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Scientific Misconduct, Editorial Policies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review