University of Toronto Radiology Residency Program, Toronto, Ontario, 13 Marshview Drive, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada E4L 3B2.
Eur J Intern Med. 2010 Feb;21(1):40-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2009.11.002. Epub 2009 Nov 26.
Data reliability in original research requires collective trust from the academic community. Standards exist to ensure data integrity, but these safeguards are applied non-uniformly so errors or even fraud may still exist in the literature.
To examine the prevalence and consequences of data errors, data reliability safeguards and fraudulent data among medical academics.
Corresponding authors of every fourth primary research paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2001-2003), Canadian Medical Association Journal (2001-2003), British Medical Journal (1998-2000), and Lancet (1998-2000) were surveyed electronically. Questions focused on each author's personal experience with data reliability, data errors and data interpretation.
Sixty-five percent (127/195) of corresponding authors responded. Ninety-four percent of respondents accepted full responsibility for the integrity of the last manuscript on which they were listed as co-author; however, 21% had discovered incorrect data after publication in previous manuscripts they had co-authored. Fraudulent data was discovered by 4% of respondents in their previous work. Four percent also noted 'smudged' data. Eighty-seven percent of respondents used data reliability safeguards in their last published manuscript, typically data review by multiple authors or double data entry. Twenty-one percent were involved in a paper that was submitted despite disagreement about the interpretation of the results, although the disagreeing author commonly withdrew from authorship.
Data reliability remains a difficult issue in medical literature. A significant proportion of respondents did not use data reliability safeguards. Research fraud does exist in academia; however, it was not reported to be highly prevalent.
原始研究的数据可靠性需要学术界的集体信任。虽然存在确保数据完整性的标准，但这些保障措施的应用并不统一，因此文献中仍可能存在错误甚至欺诈。
检查医学学者中数据错误、数据可靠性保障措施和欺诈数据的发生率和后果。
对《美国医学会杂志》（2001-2003 年）、《加拿大医学会杂志》（2001-2003 年）、《英国医学杂志》（1998-2000 年）和《柳叶刀》（1998-2000 年）上发表的每篇第四篇原始研究论文的通讯作者进行电子调查。问题集中在每位作者个人对数据可靠性、数据错误和数据解释的经验。
195 位通讯作者中有 65%（127 位）做出了回应。94%的受访者对他们作为合著者最后一份手稿的完整性承担全部责任；然而，21%的人在之前合著的手稿发表后发现了错误的数据。4%的受访者在之前的工作中发现了伪造的数据。4%的人还注意到“模糊”的数据。87%的受访者在他们最后发表的手稿中使用了数据可靠性保障措施，通常是由多位作者进行数据审查或双重数据输入。21%的人参与了一篇尽管对结果的解释存在分歧但仍被提交的论文，尽管有分歧的作者通常会退出作者身份。
数据可靠性仍然是医学文献中的一个难题。相当一部分受访者没有使用数据可靠性保障措施。学术研究中确实存在欺诈行为；然而，据报道，这种情况并不普遍。
