Submited on: 25 Feb 2011 02:16:20 AM GMT
Published on: 25 Feb 2011 10:22:45 PM GMT
 
Scientific Misconduct
Posted by Dr. Reinaldo F Lucena on 11 Apr 2011 01:09:55 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Dear author of that article and you editors Webmed Central

    The article in the current issues behind, but passed because of reports of falsification of research data by researchers are constants. However, current pressures for researchers to meet the requirements of international publications and targeting the best journals with high impact factors may be leading to these forgeries. So, I agree with the author of the article by mentioning that such pressures can not be justification for such forgeries. We must be ethical and professional sense to write and publish our research. This sense of ethics must be working since the initial levels of academic training of the professional researcher. Well done that foundation in your professional life, it will not be affected by the sinner fake to meet the demands of publications, and will seek to develop research and publish their data in a sensible and true. Congratulations to the author and the journal editors for giving us this link discussions on important issue at least for serious researchers and ethics.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Realize works on the theme of Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology, and Biodiversity Conservation Ecosystem Caatinga.

  • How to cite:  Lucena R F.Scientific Misconduct[Review of the article 'Scientific Misconduct ' by Albuquerque U].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00659
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of "Scientific Misconduct"
Posted by Dr. D. John Doyle on 08 Mar 2011 03:40:29 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is a useful start to a discussion concerning a very important issue. Some improvements would make this a better contribution. First, it would be helpful to expand on the discussion by discussing some of the recent scandals such as the ones that have taken place in the academic anesthesia community [1-8]. It would also be helpful to reference a landmark book on the subject [9]. Finally, Chart 1 did not make it into the article.


    1: Marret E, Elia N, Dahl JB, McQuay HJ, Møiniche S, Moore RA, Straube S, Tramèr MR. Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case. Anesthesiology. 2009 Dec;111(6):1279-89. PubMed PMID: 19934873.

     

    2: Tanne JH. US pain expert faces prison after pleading guilty to research fraud. BMJ. 2010 Mar 2;340:c1207. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1207. PubMed PMID: 20197320.

     

    3: Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fraud or flawed: adverse impact of fabricated or poor quality research. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):327-30. PubMed PMID: 20402871.

     

    4: Miller DR. Publication fraud: implications to the individual and to the specialty. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011 Jan 19.  PubMed PMID: 21252647.

     

    5: Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fraud or flawed: adverse impact of fabricated or poor quality research. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):327-30. PubMed PMID: 20402871.

     

    6: Tanne JH. US pain expert faces prison after pleading guilty to research fraud. BMJ. 2010 Mar 2;340:c1207. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1207. PubMed PMID: 20197320.

     

    7: Tuffs A. German anaesthetist is dismissed because of forged study. BMJ. 2010 Dec 7;341:c7026. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c7026. PubMed PMID: 21139008.

     

    8: Dyer C. Researcher didn't get ethical approval for 68 studies, investigators say. BMJ. 2011 Feb 7;342:d833. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d833. PubMed PMID: 21300720.


    9. Marcel C. LaFollette Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. University of California Press ( 1996)

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Fortunately, my expertise in this area is rather limited.

  • How to cite:  Doyle D .Review of "Scientific Misconduct"[Review of the article 'Scientific Misconduct ' by Albuquerque U].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00561
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse