JAMA has amped up the language in its disclosure policy, but doesn't think that publication bans should be levied against authors who violate these rules. Rather, they leave that to the administration of the alleged perpetrator's institution.
There is no reason to preclude responses by both bodies if, in fact, the policies of both were violated. Since publication is a currency that every author/investigator understands, and it is the arena of conduct in question, it makes sense that the response to publication misconduct take place in the realm of publication.
"The fact is that if editors demand strict standards of reporting as a condition of acceptance, investigators will meet those standards, and the standards will become the norm for how science is conducted."
(Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998 Oct; 352(Suppl 2):SII18-22.)
Laying out clear guidelines is an important first step. It's not the only step needed, however. Editors and publishers must be prepared to respond to violations of their policies directly quickly and fairly.
Over at the Nature blog on peer review, an unquestionably serious response is encouraged:
"There is little enforcement of current disclosure policies. Adopting policies that ban authors and their institutions from publishing for some period of time at the journal where the offense occurred would encourage disclosure."
Whether by the home institution, the funding agency or bodies associated with publication, responses need to be fair. Recent research on the perceptions and practice of misconduct indicate that investigators who perceive policies as unfair are more likely to "push the envelope of integrity."
(Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, deVries R. 2006. Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. J Emp Res Hum Res Ethics 1(1):51-66.)
An inadequate response to misconduct could be perceived as unfair by other authors, and may serve to create or perpetuate a culture of misconduct.
Indeed, making investigators and authors aware of the correlations and rationalizations of misconduct may help editors, administrators and peers identify, evaluate and report misconduct. This knowledge might also help investigators become more aware of their own thinking and their own biases, and ultimately prevent or minimize misconduct.
JAMA does publish corrections and even letters of apology from offending authors, but is that enough? I don't think so. The folks over at the American Journal of Bioethics don't seem convinced either:
"Having to publish corrections of data that wasn’t disclosed may be embarrassing, but the disclosure of such data is still very much a hit or miss affair. Requiring complete disclosure might help some, as might a few large verdict civil cases." (emphasis mine)
I think JAMA is moving in the right direction, but may be underestimating how quickly they could affect change through direct action. Really, because every article, "can and should have impact on patient care," time is of the essence. See the whole piece, here:
JAMA -- The Influence of Money on Medical Science, August 7, 2006, DeAngelis 0 (2006): 296.8.jed60051
Related posts:
Repeat offense: when author misconduct is editorial misconduct
External Resources:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment