Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fraud in Publishing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Writing and Research Methodology for the Orthopaedic Surgeon

Abstract

Institution of National Bodies on Ethics in Science, strict selection criteria, robust peer-reviewing, careful statistical validation, anti-plagiarism software, and image fraud detection contribute to production of high-quality manuscripts. However, scientific misconduct (fraud) still remains a considerable issue that can take many forms, at times difficult to recognize promptly. Even though clamorous examples occasionally appear in the media, detection of fraud in medical publishing is most of the time not as straightforward as one might think. This brief review attempts to present the types of misconduct that exist in publishing and the tools that journals implement to unmask them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mavrogenis AF, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ. Self-citation in publishing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2803–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998;352(Suppl 2):SII18–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Noorden R. Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature. 2011;478:26–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, Sarvas M, Aakvaag A. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National committees on scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet. 1999;354:57–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Evans S. How common is it? Joint consensus conference on misconduct. Biomed Res. 2000;30(Suppl. 7):1.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Promoting integrity in research publication. Norfolk: Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE. http://publicationethics.org. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.

  7. Office of Research Integrity. Definition of research misconduct. http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.

  8. Protti M. Policing fraud and deceit: the legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. J Infor Ethics. 1996;5:59–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shapiro MF. Data audit by a regulatory agency: its effect and implication for others. Account Res. 1992;2:219–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989629208573818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jaffer U, Cameron AE. Deceit and fraud in medical research. Int J Surg. 2006;4:122–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lock S. Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud. BMJ. 1995;310:1547–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Brumfiel G. Misconduct finding at bell labs shakes physics community. Nature. 2002;419:419–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/419419a.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brumfiel G. Bell labs launches inquiry into allegations of data duplication. Nature. 2002;417:367–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/417367a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grant P. Is a bell tolling for bell labs? Nature. 2002;417:789. https://doi.org/10.1038/417789a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Service RF. Scientific misconduct. Bell labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science. 2002;298:30–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5591.30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Service RF. Bell labs. Winning streak brought awe, and then doubt. Science. 2002;297:34–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.297.5578.34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson NP, Montgomery SM, Pounder RE, Wakefield AJ. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Lancet. 1995;345:1071–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Med. 2012;20:208–13. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. ORI policy on plagiarism. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.

  22. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it. Mater Soc. 2014;26:141–6. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2014.26.141-146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Garfield E (2002) Demand citation vigilance. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/demandcitationvigilance012102.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2015.

  24. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968;159:56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kern SE. Whose hypothesis? Ciphering, sectorials, D lesions, freckles and the operation of Stigler’s law. Cancer Biol Ther. 2002;1:571–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alsabti EAK. Massachusetts v. Alsabti. Science. 1989;245:1046. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1046-c.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Broad WJ. Charges of piracy follow alsabti. Science. 1980;210:291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.210.4467.291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Broad W, Wade N. Betrayers of the truth. In:Touchstone book. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Miller DJ, Hersen M. Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences. New York, N.Y: Wiley; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bonnet F, Samama CM. Cases of fraud in publications: from Darsee to Poldermans. Presse Med. 2012;41:816–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2012.04.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kochan CA, Budd JM. The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1992;43:488–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<488::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Relman AS. Lessons from the Darsee affair. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:1415–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198306093082311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tynan M, Anderson RH. Different lessons from the Darsee affair? Int J Cardiol. 1984;5:9–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pontille D, Torny D. Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2012;60:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2012.06.395.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kempers RD. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:883–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat Res. 2005;589:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res. 2005;589:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parrish D, Noonan B. Image manipulation as research misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009;15:161–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9108-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin C, Blatt M. Manipulation and misconduct in the handling of image data. Plant Cell. 2013;25:3147–8. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.113.250980.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hollyfield JG. Manuscript fabrication, image manipulation and plagiarism. Exp Eye Res. 2012;94:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2011.10.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Couzin-Frankel J. Image manipulation. Author of popular blog that charged fraud unmasked. Science. 2013;339:132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.339.6116.132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Astaneh B, Masoumi S. Image manipulation; how far is too far. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63:929–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Katolab image-fraud. http://katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/dna-demethylation-in-hormone-induced.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2015.

  44. Alleged image fraud by Shigeaki Kato lab at the University of Tokyo (Alleged research misconduct). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXaOqwanWnU. Accessed 13 Sept 2015.

  45. Rogers LF. Salami slicing, shotgunning, and the ethics of authorship. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:265. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:499–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Broad WJ. The publishing game: getting more for less. Science. 1981;211:1137–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jackson D, Walter G, Daly J, Cleary M. Editorial: multiple outputs from single studies: acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12439.

  49. Klein AA, Pozniak A, Pandit JJ. Salami slicing or living off the fat? Justifying multiple publications from a single HIV dataset. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:195–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.12603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Norman G. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pierson CA. Salami slicing--how thin is the slice? J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2015;27:65. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Supak Smolcic V. Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochem Med. 2013;23:237–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Netland PA. Ethical authorship and the Ingelfinger rule in the digital age. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1111–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Harnad S. Ingelfinger over-ruled. Lancet. 2000;356:s16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Germenis AE. Beyond the Ingelfinger rule: the intellectual property ethics after the end of biomedical journals’ monopoly. Med Inform Internet Med. 1999;24:165–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Falagas ME, Alexiou VG. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2008;56:223–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kirchhof B, Bornfeld N, Grehn F. The delicate topic of the impact factor Graefe’s. Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:925–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Cash-per-publication. Nature. 2006;441:786. https://doi.org/10.1038/441786a.

  59. PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Whitehouse GH. Impact factors: facts and myths. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:715–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1212-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Schutte HK, Svec JG. Reaction of folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2007;59:281–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000108334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Foo JY. Impact of excessive journal self-citations: a case study on the folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica journal. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9177-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. First Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece

    Andreas F. Mavrogenis & Georgios N. Panagopoulos

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA

    Cyril Mauffrey

  3. Clinique St. Michel, Toulon, France

    Marius M. Scarlat

Authors
  1. Andreas F. Mavrogenis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgios N. Panagopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cyril Mauffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marius M. Scarlat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas F. Mavrogenis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Director of Service, Director of Orthopaedic Trauma and Research, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA

    Cyril Mauffrey

  2. Departement Chirurgie Orthopédique, Clinique Chirurgicale St Michel, Toulon, France

    Marius M. Scarlat

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mavrogenis, A.F., Panagopoulos, G.N., Mauffrey, C., Scarlat, M.M. (2018). Fraud in Publishing. In: Mauffrey, C., Scarlat, M. (eds) Medical Writing and Research Methodology for the Orthopaedic Surgeon. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69350-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69350-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69349-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69350-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation