ArticleThe New England journal of medicine1987
Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research.
Article in The New England journal of medicine, 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 143 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Archeology of Corruption in Medicine.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- Trends in Academic "Ghost Publications" in Plastic Surgery Residency Applications: A 3-Year Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- Editorial: Why Some Authors Make Bad Choices--Peer Review for Hire and Other Sad Stories.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Article
- A brief history of RCR education.Accountability in research · 2013Article
- Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?PloS one · 2013Article
- Article
- Econobiophysics - game of choosing. Model of selection or election process with diverse accessible information.Nonlinear biomedical physics · 2011Article
- Writing for clinical orthopaedics and related research.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2008Article
- Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct.Science and engineering ethics · 2007Article
- Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?Science and engineering ethics · 2003Article
- Roles for scientific societies in promoting integrity in publication ethics.Science and engineering ethics · 2003Article
- Who wrote this paper anyway?The new Vancouver Group statement refines the definition of authorship.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2000Article
- An introduction to research ethics.Science and engineering ethics · 1996Article
- Relationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomic and clinical research.PharmacoEconomics · 1995Review
- Information for peer reviewers.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1994Review
- Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Causes, investigation and prevention. A report of the Royal College of Physicians.Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London · 1991Article
- Our silent enemy: ashes in our libraries.Bulletin of the Medical Library Association · 1989Article
- Fraud in medicine.British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) · 1988Article
- Fraud in medicine.British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) · 1988Article
- A research database for improved data management and analysis in longitudinal studies.M.D. computing : computers in medical practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early in 1985, after being questioned about duplicate data in two of his papers, Robert A. Slutsky, M.D., resigned his appointments as a radiology resident (trainee) and nonsalaried associate clinical professor in the Department of Radiology at the University of California, San Diego. During the following year, faculty committees investigated Slutsky's entire bibliography of 137 articles published in seven years; 77 (including reviews) were classified as valid, 48 were judged questionable, and 12 were deemed fraudulent. The majority of these papers were published while Slutsky was a research or clinical trainee in cardiology, nuclear medicine, and then radiology. Our analysis of this case leads us to conclude that research fraud, although probably rare, in view of the size of the research establishment, may evade detection, and that there are scientists prepared to run the appreciable risk of submitting inaccurate statements for publication. Sophisticated dishonesty can escape detection by peer review and replication. The emphasis on competition and the pressure to produce, while intended to advance the discovery of truth, may foster a conflict between personal career goals and the intellectual motivation of scientists to seek the truth. The scientific community needs to address the issues raised by recent reports of fraud. Each institution and granting agency must have procedures for investigating suspected fraud or unethical practices, procedures that protect both the person who reports such practices and the accused person from premature disclosure. As we heighten awareness, we must avoid a "witch hunt." Deterrence of research fraud is clearly needed, but institution of practices that might stifle originality or discourage cooperative research would be counterproductive.
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.