Scientific Misconduct and Medical Journals
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
When a concern is raised about the integrity of an RCT, investigation frequently demands access to the deidentified raw data.
“When a concern is raised about the integrity of an RCT, investigation frequently demands access to the deidentified raw data.6,11,14”
From Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
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
Bauchner, H. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14249 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationRetractedFanelli, D. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 · Cited by 1,911 · see citing works
Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions
Steneck, N. H. (2006) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/pl00022268 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world
Carter, L. (2007) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
van der Weyden, M. V. (2006) · doi:10.2349/biij.2.4.e54-13 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Ranstam, J., Buyse, M. E., George, S. L., Evans, S. J. W., Geller, N. L., Scherrer, B., Lesaffre, E. M. E. H., Murray, G. D., Edler, L., Hutton, J. L., et al. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00069-6 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Elia, N., Wager, E., & Tramèr, M. R. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085846 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility
Gunsalus, C. K., Marcus, A. R., & Oransky, I. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0358 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Correcting the Medical Literature: “To Err Is Human, to Correct Divine”
Christiansen, S. L., & Flanagin, A. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11833 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationHeckers, S., Bauchner, H., & Flanagin, A. (2015) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationResearcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him
(2021) · AAAS Articles DO Group · doi:10.1126/science.aav1079 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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.
- 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
Yi, N., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2019) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1652096 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Khan, K. S., Fawzy, M., & Chien, P. F. W. (2023) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.14837 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bauchner, H., Fontanarosa, P. B., Flanagin, A., & Thornton, J.
- Affiliations
- JAMA and the JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois
- Corresponding author
- Bauchner, Howard
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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