Parrish D M
Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1207, USA.
Acad Med. 1999 Mar;74(3):221-30. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199903000-00009.
Journal editors are among those who must face the issue of when and how to correct the scientific literature when an allegation or finding of scientific misconduct occurs. The author describes an instructive incident of tainted data and a subsequent allegation of misconduct that involved a federally-sponsored study where some data had been fabricated. The journals that had published or were considering articles from that study were not told about the problem for almost four years after the initial allegations of misconduct. The author then provides information to throw light on such questions as: Who has the responsibility to ensure that a manuscript that may contain falsified or fabricated data is not published? Who has the responsibility to correct the literature when falsified or fabricated data have been published, and at what point should that correction be made? For example, should it be when the problem of data is suspected or when it is proven? And if proven, proven by whom? How is the larger scientific community to be notified about the problem? Where and when should the correction or retraction appear, and what should it tell readers about the basis for the retraction or correction? She also presents data from 25 cases to show the various lengths of time involved in correcting the literature after allegations of research misconduct had been made. The author concludes that the record shows how disconnected journal editors have been from the scientific misconduct process and that expectations differ regarding the obligations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies about informing a journal when an allegation of scientific misconduct is made about a publication in its pages. The 25 cases show that substantial delays in notifying the journal and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are endemic, and that all parties have far to go in appreciating their roles in maintaining the integrity of the biomedical literature.
当出现科学不端行为的指控或发现时，期刊编辑必须面对何时以及如何纠正科学文献这一问题。作者描述了一个关于数据造假的典型事件以及随后的不端行为指控，该事件涉及一项由联邦政府资助的研究，其中一些数据是伪造的。在最初提出不端行为指控后的近四年时间里，发表或正在考虑发表该研究相关文章的期刊都未被告知该问题。作者随后提供了一些信息，以阐明诸如以下问题：谁有责任确保可能包含伪造或编造数据的稿件不被发表？当伪造或编造的数据已被发表时，谁有责任纠正文献，以及应该在何时进行纠正？例如，应该在怀疑数据有问题时还是在被证实时进行纠正？如果被证实，由谁来证实？如何向广大科学界通报该问题？纠正或撤回声明应在何处以及何时出现，应告知读者撤回或纠正的依据是什么？她还展示了25个案例的数据，以说明在提出研究不端行为指控后纠正文献所涉及的不同时间长度。作者得出结论，记录显示了期刊编辑与科学不端行为处理过程的脱节程度，并且对于作者、研究机构和联邦机构在就其页面上发表的文章提出科学不端行为指控时通知期刊的义务，各方的期望存在差异。这25个案例表明，在向期刊和公众通报科学不端行为的指控和发现方面存在严重延误，而且各方在认识到自己在维护生物医学文献完整性方面的作用方面还有很长的路要走。
