SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.33 issue1Misconduct and retractionA necessary reflection on the legal framework of biomedical scientific research author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

My SciELO

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Gaceta Sanitaria

Print version ISSN 0213-9111

Gac Sanit vol.33 n.1 Barcelona Jan./Feb. 2019  Epub Oct 21, 2019

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.06.013 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Some proposals on tracking scientific misconduct

Algunas propuestas para seguir las malas prácticas científicas

Alberto Ruano-Ravinaa  b  c  *  , Isabel Campos-Varelad  e 

aDepartment of Preventive Medicine & Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain

bConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública - CIBERESP), Spain

cPreventive Medicine and Public Health Unit, Monforte de Lemos Local Hospital, Monforte de Lemos (Lugo), Spain

dCLINURSID, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña), Spain

eDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña), Spain

Dear Editor:

We acknowledge the comments by Joob and Wiwaanitkit f regarding our research paper,1 and we do agree with most of them. In our opinion, time has come for scientific journals and digital databases of scientific information (i.e. Medline) to provide readers with more information regarding retraction characteristics. It is important that these databases identify not only retracted papers, but also the causes for such retraction and at least classify them as “not related with ethic issues” or “breaching ethics retractions”. While the first category should not compromise authors’ or journals’ credibility, since it might also include retractions due to mistakes attributed to a particular journal, the second would be linked mostly to cheating researchers and therefore classified as misconduct. Editors have the duty, and readers would like to know, who are those researchers committing misconduct. Having a tag in Medline classifying misconduct in detail should also serve as a tool for editors in order to track if an author or group of authors submitting a paper have a history of such retractions.

We think that a clearer link and visibility for retractions due to misconduct should be provided in international databases. As the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors state, besides showing clearly the retracted paper in the affected journal, “retracted articles should remain in the public domain and be clearly labelled as retracted”.2 We do not see any reason for not providing to the general public a more detailed reason of retraction, including full details on authorship.

The Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org) gives us interesting reflections on misconduct management within editors in chief.3 It is clear that before communicating misconduct in databases such as PubMed or in the affected journal, misconduct has to be clearly proved in order to avoid unfounded discredit or even defamation to authors. Nevertheless, once misconduct has been demonstrated we do not see reasons to clearly highlight the affected research and researchers in electronic databases.

References

1. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Raviña A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac Sanit. 2018 May 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009, pii: S0213-9111(18)30072-4. [ Links ]

2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Scientific misconduct, expressions of concern, and retraction. (Accessed 01/06/2018.) Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.htmlLinks ]

3. Committee on Publication Ethics. Yentis S. Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct. (Accessed 01/06/2018.) Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/Sharing%20_of_Information_Among_EiCs_guidelines_web_version_0.pdfLinks ]

fLetter by Joob and Wiwaanitkit.

*Corresponding author:alberto.ruano@usc.es (A. Ruano-Ravina).

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License