IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v1y2013i3p140-145d30485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combating Fraud in Medical Research: Research Validation Standards Utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology

Author

Listed:
  • Bhavin Patel

    (Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA)

  • Anahita Dua

    (Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA
    Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Texas at Houston Medical School, Houston, TX 77030, USA)

  • Tom Koenigsberger

    (Journal of Surgical Radiology, Houston, TX 77004, USA)

  • Sapan S. Desai

    (Journal of Surgical Radiology, Houston, TX 77004, USA
    Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, CA 27710, USA)

Abstract

Fraud in medical publishing has risen to the national spotlight as manufactured and suspect data have led to retractions of papers in prominent journals. Moral turpitude in medical research has led to the loss of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, directly affected patient care, and has led to severe legal ramifications for some authors. While there are multiple checks and balances in medical research to prevent fraud, the final enforcement lies with journal editors and publishers. There is an ethical and legal obligation to make careful and critical examinations of the medical research published in their journals. Failure to follow the highest standards in medical publishing can lead to legal liability and destroy a journal’s integrity. More significant, however, is the protection of the medical profession’s trust with their colleagues and the public they serve. This article discusses various techniques and tools available to editors and publishers that can help curtail fraud in medical publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhavin Patel & Anahita Dua & Tom Koenigsberger & Sapan S. Desai, 2013. "Combating Fraud in Medical Research: Research Validation Standards Utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:1:y:2013:i:3:p:140-145:d:30485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/3/140/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/3/140/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Van Noorden, 2011. "Science publishing: The trouble with retractions," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7367), pages 26-28, October.
    2. Eugenie Samuel Reich, 2012. "Misconduct ruling is silent on intent," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 189-190, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    2. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    3. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    4. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    5. M. D. Ribeiro & S. M. R. Vasconcelos, 2018. "Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 719-734, February.
    6. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    7. Ali Ghorbi & Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh & Erfan Ghaderi-Azad & Marcel Ausloos & Marcin Kozak, 2021. "Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7351-7371, September.
    8. Pachankis, Yang, 2022. "The translation of uniformity or a sociology of knowledge: issues of publishing ethics in the 21st entury," MPRA Paper 115812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Caroline Lievore & Priscila Rubbo & Celso Biynkievycz Santos & Claudia Tânia Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti, 2021. "Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6871-6889, August.
    10. M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2018. "An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1315-1328, June.
    11. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    12. Valérie Orozco & Christophe Bontemps & Elise Maigné & Virginie Piguet & Annie Hofstetter & Anne Lacroix & Fabrice Levert & Jean‐Marc Rousselle, 2020. "How To Make A Pie: Reproducible Research For Empirical Economics And Econometrics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(5), pages 1134-1169, December.
    13. Winnink, J.J. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & van Raan, A.F.J., 2019. "Searching for new breakthroughs in science: How effective are computerised detection algorithms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 673-686.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:1:y:2013:i:3:p:140-145:d:30485. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.