ReviewJournal of anesthesia2026
Anesthesia research misconduct in Japan: understanding the status is critical to prevention.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In reply: different viewpoints on research misconduct-comment on 'Anesthesia research misconduct in Japan: understanding the status is critical to prevention' by Hirota et al.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Different viewpoints on research misconduct-comment on 'Anesthesia research misconduct in Japan: understanding the status is critical to prevention' by Hirota et al.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retraction Watch indicates that half of the worst 10 cases of research misconduct were by Japanese researchers. This is exemplified in an article entitled 'Tide of Lies' published in the Journal "Science". This article is a no holds barred view of some of the science in Japan and is an essential step on the road to prevention. However, as 3 Japanese anesthesiologists are listed in the worst 10, many Japanese academic societies point the finger at the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA). The society cannot ignore this. Prevention of research misconduct/fraud has therefore been considered. Whilst there are no measures that can completely prevent research misconduct, there are steps that can reduce its likelihood. At the researcher level, mandatory ethics training. At the department and laboratory level, central data management, regular research progress/debriefing meetings. At the academic society level, Research Misconduct Monitoring Committees should be set up to facilitate anonymous reporting. Regaining research reputation and passion in Japan is critical to moving our specialty forward. This must be done with renewed vigor for the prevention of research misconduct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40643616What 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.