Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
J Psychosom Res. 2021 May;144:110412. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110412. Epub 2021 Mar 2.
The journal received a request to retract a paper reporting the results of a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. The present and immmediate past editors expand on the journal's decision not to retract this paper in spite of undisputable evidence of scientific misconduct on behalf of one of the investigators.
The editors present an ethical reflection on the request to retract this randomized clinical trial with consideration of relevant guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) applied to the unique contextual issues of this case.
In this case, scientific misconduct by a blinded provider of a homeopathy intervention attempted to undermine the study blind. As part of the study, the integrity of the study blind was assessed. Neither participants nor homeopaths were able to identify whether the participant was assigned to homeopathic medicine or placebo. Central to the decision not to retract the paper was the fact that the rigorous scientific design provided evidence that the outcome of the study was not affected by the misconduct. The misconduct itself was thought to be insufficient reason to retract the paper.
Retracting a paper of which the outcome is still valid was in itself considered unethical, as it takes away the opportunity to benefit from its results, rendering the whole study useless. In such cases, scientific misconduct is better handled through other professional channels.
本刊收到一份撤稿请求，要求撤回一篇报告三盲随机安慰剂对照试验结果的论文。现任和前任编辑针对该研究一名调查员存在明确的科学不端行为证据，仍决定不撤稿，对此展开了讨论。
编辑们根据出版伦理委员会（COPE）和国际医学期刊编辑委员会（ICMJE）的相关准则，对这一随机临床试验的撤稿请求进行了伦理反思，并考虑了此案的独特背景问题。
在本案例中，一名接受盲法治疗的顺势疗法提供者的科学不端行为试图破坏研究的盲法。作为研究的一部分，评估了研究盲法的完整性。参与者和顺势疗法制剂师均无法识别参与者被分配到顺势疗法药物还是安慰剂。不撤稿的一个关键因素是，严格的科学设计提供了证据表明，研究结果并未受到不当行为的影响。因此，不当行为本身并不是撤稿的充分理由。
撤稿一份其结果仍然有效的论文本身被认为是不道德的，因为这剥夺了从其结果中获益的机会，使整个研究变得毫无用处。在这种情况下，科学不端行为最好通过其他专业渠道处理。
