Article Text

PDF
When authors lie, readers cry and editors sigh
  1. Luis Carlos Saiz1,
  2. Juan Erviti2,
  3. Javier Garjón3
  1. 1 Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Regional Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
  2. 2 Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Regional Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
  3. 3 Unit of Drug Assessment, Advice and Research, Navarre Regional Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Luis Carlos Saiz, Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Regional Health Service, Pamplona 31002, Spain; lsaizfer{at}navarra.es

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Unethical behaviour by any of the actors involved in the edition of a scientific paper can lead to a miscalculation of evidence synthesis indicators. More specifically, duplicate publication may lead to the incorporation of false evidence in meta-analyses, which will adversely affect the assessment of the efficacy and safety of interventions.1 On the other hand, redundant evidence can affect the validity of practice recommendations by professional associations, which usually underpin clinical practice. Systematic reviews create an excellent opportunity to identify and denounce scientific fraud, as they involve a thorough literature search.2

Our research group has wide experience in the performance of systematic reviews in the field of hypertension and has witnessed a striking case of redundant publication. We thought it would be interesting to analyse this case in detail to start a debate on how the world of scientific publications work, how scientists and scholars are credited and the role that readers play when fraud is detected.

Two clinical trials, eight papers, a suspicion

In March 2015, our research group conducted a literature search on several databases with the purpose of performing a Cochrane systematic review.3 A total of eight papers signed by the same principal investigator were found to meet our inclusion criteria. Our group contacted the author to gather some further information on his studies, confirm their suitability for our systematic review and determine the relationship between them. In the light of the weak explanations provided by the author and the strong similarities observed among the different studies, we contacted the editors in chief of the journals involved to inform them on our suspicion of redundancy.

The editors took between 2 and 9 months to provide an answer, which can be considered a reasonable time. Finally, the editors decided to maintain the papers with the earliest copyright related to the two different trials …

View Full Text

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.