The role of Cochrane Review authors in exposing research and publication misconduct

Abstract

At the Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane & CampbellCollaborations in Keystone in October 2010, we ran a workshop about the problems of detecting research misconduct,[1] and had a wonderful discussion with participants.The US O ice of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results; fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them; falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record; plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit; research misconduct does not include honest error or di erences of opinion".[2]The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) also outlines publication and research misconduct in its flowcharts for editors, and highlights redundant (duplicate) publication, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and ethical problems as additional types of misconduct.[3]Cochrane Review authors, as they analyse the entirety of primary research evidence in a specific area, are well placed to identify many of these types of research and publication misconduct.Indeed, Professor Sir Iain Chalmers urged systematic reviewers, not so long ago, to harness their unique opportunity to detect plagiarism.

Ähnliche Arbeiten