Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37533089›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2023

Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.

Fabrice Frank, Nans Florens, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Jérôme Barriere, Éric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, Lonni Besançon

Erratum issuedAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fabrice FrankIndependent researcher, Essaouira, Morocco.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6524-4570
Nans FlorensDepartment of Nephrology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-6055
Gideon Meyerowitz-KatzSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1156-9345
Jérôme BarriereMedical Oncology Department, Polyclinique Saint-Jean, Cagnes-sur-Mer, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1113-8948
Éric BillyIndependent researcher, Strasbourg, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8859-0089
Véronique SaadaBiopathology department, Gustave Roussy Anti-Cancer Center, Villejuif, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8021-9050
Alexander SamuelIndependent researcher, Nice, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4547-5280
Jacques RobertUniversité de Bordeaux, INSERM Unité 1312, Bordeaux, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4380-1476
Lonni BesançonMedia and Information Technology, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. lonni.besancon@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7207-1276

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end.

methodsWe present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France.

resultsWe identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here.

conclusionThis case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.

Indexed as

Clinical researchEthicsIRB (Institutional Review Board)Scientific publicationsScientific publishing

Identifiers

PMID37533089
PMCPMC10398994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.