Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach

4 Are Current Publication Standards Protecting the Integrity of the Scientific Record?

4 Are Current Publication Standards Protecting the Integrity of the Scientific Record? Publication is an important end product of the research process, carrying significant rewards for the researchers and essential to the accumulation of scientific knowledge. At the same time, traditional mechanisms thought to control research misconduct, such as peer review and replication, are central to publication. The damage from fabricated or falsified data and plagiarism is rarely apparent until papers are published and enter the stream of scientific knowledge. In the network that produces such knowledge, journal publishers and editors represent the most proactive node where detection and prevention of research misconduct is occurring, independently of present regulatory bodies. (Other network nodes include mentoring and education in the ethical conduct of research, employer approval and oversight, and funding decisions.) The efforts of publishers and editors, however, are greatly limited by the lack of policy and structures to control research misconduct in many parts of the world. Journal Publication Standards Although they have evolved over the years, journal publication standards, even when conscientiously implemented, still have 60 Chapter 4 only limited power to address research misconduct. In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors developed authorship criteria, attempting to prevent future instances of guest authorship with little oversight evident in the John Darsee and Robert Slutsky cases of research misconduct. However, as Anne Hudson Jones (2003) points out, in the Jan Hendrik Schön case, nearly twenty years later, even though at least sixteen physics research papers under group authorship were found to contain falsified data, only Schön was found to have committed research misconduct. A recent Internet search (October 21, 2010) yielded the following statements of publication standards: HEART Group (editors of 37 international cardiovascular journals): “Establish thorough review processes particularly alert to discovering fraud and data falsification, redundant or duplicate publication, and plagiarism, and adopt a uniform standard of dealing with authors guilty of fraudulent practices ” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2431165/). Blackwell Publishing’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: “If editors suspect research misconduct, they should attempt to ensure this is properly investigated by the appropriate authorities. Peer review sometimes reveals suspicions of misconduct. Editors should inform peer reviewers about this potential role” (Graf et al. 2007, 4). World Association of Medical Editors (WAME): “Journals should have a clear policy on handling concerns or allegations about misconduct. . . . Journals do not have the resources or authority to conduct a formal judicial inquiry or arrive at a formal conclusion regarding misconduct. That process is the role of the individual’s employer, university, granting agency, or regulatory body. On the other hand, journals do have a responsibility to help protect the integrity of the public scien- Current Publication Standards 61 tific record by sharing reasonable concerns with authorities whocanconductsuchaninvestigation”(http://www.wame.org/ resources/ethics-resources/publication-ethics-policies-for -medical-journals/). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): “If substantial doubts arise about the honesty or integrity of work, either submitted or published, it is the editor’s responsibility to ensure that the question is appropriately pursued, usually by the authors’ sponsoring institution. However, it isn’t ordinarily the task of editors to conduct a full investigation or make a determination; that responsibility lies with the institution where the work was done or with the funding agency. . . . If a fraudulent paper has been published, the journal must print a retraction. . . . As an alternative to retraction, the editor may choose to publish an expression of concern about aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work”(http://www.icmje.org/ urm_full.pdf). Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): “Editors should not simply reject papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are ethically obligated to pursue the case. . . . Editors . . . must recognize that they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious cases. . . . If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted an adequate investigation of a serious accusation, they may feel that publication of a notice in the journal is warranted. Legal advice will be essential” (http://fampra.oxfordjournals .org/content/17/3/218.full). How Standards Are Being Implemented Adopting and implementing a policy on research misconduct are basic steps for journals to take in fulfilling their responsibility 62 Chapter 4 to the public. Yet there is growing evidence that many if not most journals don’t take these steps. Thus, in a recent...