Retraction--Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study

Data fraud in clinical trials

Highly publicized cases of fabrication or falsification of data in clinical trials have occurred in recent years and it is likely that there are additional undetected or unreported cases. We review the available evidence on the incidence of data fraud in clinical trials, describe several prominent cases, present information on motivation and contributing factors and discuss cost-effective ways of early detection of data fraud as part of routine central statistical monitoring of data quality. Adoption of these clinical trial monitoring procedures can identify potential data fraud not detected by conventional on-site monitoring and can improve overall data quality.

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.

What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs?

The recent publication, in prestigious scientific journals, of two major studies that were subsequently shown to contain fabricated data may compel reviewers and editors to adopt a more rigorous policy in accepting articles for publication. The current manner of peer reviewing research articles provides no assurance that the proffered work is not the result of fraud. The present guidelines for contributors in large team investigations may need to be updated to avoid giving credit to co-authors who may have made little, if any, contribution to the work.