ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2015
Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Academic visibility, trends, and emerging patterns of Peruvian university professors of health sciences with the highest number of theses: A scientometric analysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials.International journal of clinical oncology · 2016Article
- Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016Article
- Authorship misconduct.Zoological research · 2016Article
- Scientific misconduct and unethical practices in anaesthesiology: Stumbling blocks to quality research and publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2015Article
- Criteria to be an author of a manuscript: Time to revisit the ICMJE criteria and CRediT.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is a narrative review about how appropriate authorship can be achieved, a brief mention about various scientific misconducts, the reason and consequences of such misconducts and finally, the policies to be adopted by the aspiring authors to avert these problems. The literature search was performed in the Google and PubMed using 'scientific misconduct', 'honorary/ghost authorship', 'publish-or-perish', 'plagiarism' and other related key words and phrases. More than 300 free full-text articles published from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and studied. Many consensus views have been presented regarding what constitutes authorship, the authorship order and different scientific misconducts. The conflicts about authorship issues related to publication of dissertation, the area of the grey zone have been discussed. Suggestions from different authorities about improving the existing inappropriate authorship issues have been included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.