Cited by 28Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.

Parrish, D M·1999·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Journal editors are among those who must face the issue of when and how to correct the scientific literature when an allegation or finding of scientific misconduct occurs. The author describes an instructive incident of tainted data and a subsequent allegation of misconduct that involved a federally-sponsored study where some data had been fabricated. The journals that had published or were considering articles from that study were not told about the problem for almost four years after the initial allegations of misconduct. The author then provides information to throw light on such questions as: Who has the responsibility to ensure that a manuscript that may contain falsified or fabricated data is not published? Who has the responsibility to correct the literature when falsified or fabricated data have been published, and at what point should that correction be made? For example, should it be when the problem of data is suspected or when it is proven? And if proven, proven by whom? How is the larger scientific community to be notified about the problem? Where and when should the correction or retraction appear, and what should it tell readers about the basis for the retraction or correction? She also presents data from 25 cases to show the various lengths of time involved in correcting the literature after allegations of research misconduct had been made. The author concludes that the record shows how disconnected journal editors have been from the scientific misconduct process and that expectations differ regarding the obligations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies about informing a journal when an allegation of scientific misconduct is made about a publication in its pages. The 25 cases show that substantial delays in notifying the journal and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are endemic, and that all parties have far to go in appreciating their roles in maintaining the integrity of the biomedical literature.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199903000-00009

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 28

Metadata

Authors
Parrish, D. M.
Corresponding author
Parrish, D M
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
1999-03
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
221-30
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095436858
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
research misconduct, research misconduct allegations, retraction, journal editors, data fabrication, falsified data
MeSH terms
Humans, Manuscripts, Medical as Topic, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research Support as Topic, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Social Responsibility, United States, Scientific Misconduct, Government Regulation, Biomedical Research

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