A. Marušic / H. Marcovitch
A. Marušic / H. Marcovitch
Year of publication
Each year brings to light several cases of scientific fraud. In 2011, the Netherlands Academy of Sciences struck off a renowned social psychologist who had falsified the results in several of his articles published in respected journals such as Science. He was one of the most notorious cases, on the heels of another scandal two years earlier when a respected U.S. scientist in multimodal analgesia apparently manipulated data in at least 20 articles published since 1996.
These are extreme cases, and the harm caused to patients and public health, they say, is limited. However, there are other types of misconduct in the field of scientific research that are more widespread, subtle and difficult to detect. These include practices such as selective publication of data to support a previous hypothesis, biased discussion, the hiring of ghostwriters, plagiarism or the temptation of some journal editors to promote the articles with positive results.
These are just some examples of bad practice in the biomedical publishing world that organizations like the CSE (Council of Science Editors) and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) are responsible for reporting. Ana Marušić, a former president of CSE, and COPE President Harvey Marcovitch, have edited a new Esteve Foundation Notebook containing a selection of guides and articles on conflict of interest in biomedical journals.
The publication is intended as a useful tool for readers, authors and editors of scientific journals, and for those who are interested to preserving the integrity of scientific knowledge. A collection of a wide range of resources for combating bad practices in biomedical publication, the book addresses conflict of interest as a factor that may have a significant adverse effect on the field of research. And although findings of malpractice are less serious than the falsification or fabrication of data, cumulatively their damage on scientific knowledge can be greater than that of the most notorious cases.
Please Note: – For copyright issues, it is not possible to download the full PDF of the Notebook or chapters 2, 12 or 15. – The updated version of Chapter 2 can be downloaded directly from theCSE website. – The PDF version of Chapter 12 can be requested via email from email@example.com
|Introduction||A. Marušic / H. Marcovitch||[wpdm id=621 type=”btn”]|
|1. Committee on Publications Ethics Guideline||COPE||[wpdm id=961 type=”btn2″]|
|2. Council of Science Editors Guideline||CSE||[wpdm type=”btn3″]|
|3. European Association of Science Editors Guideline||EASE||[wpdm id=962 type=”btn2″]|
|4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Guideline||ICMJE||[wpdm id=963 type=”btn2″]|
|5. World Association of Medical Editors Guideline||WAME||[wpdm id=964 type=”btn2″]|
|6. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Guideline||WHO-EMRO||[wpdm id=965 type=”btn2″]|
|7. Is academic medicine for sale?||M. Angell (N Engl J Med, 2000)||[wpdm id=966 type=”btn2″]|
|8. Reporting financial conflicts of interest and relationships between investigators and research sponsors||CD. DeAngelis / PB. Fontaranosa / A. Flanagin (JAMA, 2001)||[wpdm id=967 type=”btn2″]|
|9. Financial associations of authors||JM. Drazen / GD. Curfman (N Engl J Med, 2002)||[wpdm id=968 type=”btn2″]|
|10. Conflicts of interest: can you believe what you read?||F. van Kolfschooten (Nature, 2002)||[wpdm id=969 type=”btn2″]|
|11. The role of journal editors in the responsible conduct of industry-sponsored biomedical research and publication: a view from the other side of the editor’s desk||SG. Korenman (Science Editor, 2003)||[wpdm id=970 type=”btn2″]|
|12. Editor’s declaration of their own conflicts of interest||I. Haivas / S. Schroter / F. Waechter / R. Smith (CMAJ, 2004)||[wpdm type=”btn3″]|
|13. How does PLoS Medicine manage competing interests?||The PLoS Medicine Editors (PLoS Med, 2005)||[wpdm id=971 type=”btn2″]|
|14. Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity||R. Smith (J R Soc Med, 2006)||[wpdm id=972 type=”btn2″]|
|15. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective||C. Graf / E. Wager / A. Bowman / S. Fiack / D. Scott-Lichter / A. Robinson (Int J Clin Pract, 2007)||[wpdm type=”btn3″]|
|16. Conflict of interest, journal review, and publication policy||DF. Klein / ID. Glick (Neuropshycopharmacology, 2008)||[wpdm id=973 type=”btn2″]|
|17. Making sense of non-financial competing interests||The PLoS Medicine Editors (PLoS Med, 2008)||[wpdm id=974 type=”btn2″]|
|18. Addressing conflict in strategic literature reviews: disclosure is not enough||D. Michaels (J Epidemiol Community Health, 2009)||[wpdm id=975 type=”btn2″]|
|19. How could disclosure of interests work better in medicine, epidemiology and public health: How do potential conflicts of interest confuse medicine and public health?||H. Marcovitch (J Epidemiol Community Health, 2009)||[wpdm id=976 type=”btn2″]|
|20. Editorial interest in conflict of interest||A. Marušic (Croat Med J, 2009)||[wpdm id=977 type=”btn2″]|
|21. Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue||H. Marcovitch / V. Barbour / C. Borrell / F. Bosch / E. Fernández / H Macdonald et al. (Croat Med J, 2010)||[wpdm id=978 type=”btn2″]|
|Acknowledgements||A. Marušic / H. Marcovitch||[wpdm id=622 type=”btn”]|