Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40254942›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2025

Defamation Claims Arising from Research Misconduct Cases: Best Practices for Institutions.

Nathaniel Jaffe, Minal Caron, Lauren Walsh, Barbara Bierer, Mark Barnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Maintaining the Integrity of the Biomedical Research Record Through Timely, Appropriate Corrective Action.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nathaniel JaffeRopes & Gray LLP, Health Care Practice Group, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Minal CaronRopes & Gray LLP, Health Care Practice Group, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Lauren WalshMass General Brigham, Office of General Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Barbara BiererDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6448-8170
Mark BarnesRopes & Gray LLP, Health Care Practice Group, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers involved in research misconduct proceedings are increasingly threatening or bringing legal defamation claims against the institutions, complainants, and publications involved in the proceedings. Although defamation claims do not often succeed, they can nevertheless be costly and lengthy. This article analyzes certain defamation cases in the research misconduct space and provides advice for institutions and other involved parties seeking to minimize potential defamation liability associated with research misconduct proceedings.

Indexed as

defamationlawsuitlitigationresearch misconductwhistleblower

Identifiers

PMID40254942
PMCPMC12174786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.