
doi: 10.1157/13112245
pmid: 18001665
Most scientific research is conducted properly and reported honestly but a few authors invent or manipulate data to reach fraudulent conclusions. Other types of misconduct include deliberately providing incomplete or improperly processed data, failure to follow ethical procedures, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of patient confidentiality, improper award or denial of authorship, failure to declare competing interests, duplicate submission and plagiarism. Editors, peer reviewers and publishers may also act wrongly. Good practice guidelines are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (The Vancouver Group) and the Council of Science Editors, amongst others. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides flowcharts to assist editors deal with authorial misconduct. Examples are provided of cases involving epidemiological or public health research, reported to COPE over the last 9 years. Suggestions are offered as to how misconduct might be handled in future.
Ethics, Publishing, Informed Consent, Conflict of Interest, Research, Peer Review, Scientific Misconduct, Ética, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Authorship, Plagiarism, Research Personnel, Ethics, Research, Malas prácticas, Scientific misconduct, Duplicate Publications as Topic, Publicaciones, Investigación, Humans, Journals, Confidentiality
Ethics, Publishing, Informed Consent, Conflict of Interest, Research, Peer Review, Scientific Misconduct, Ética, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Authorship, Plagiarism, Research Personnel, Ethics, Research, Malas prácticas, Scientific misconduct, Duplicate Publications as Topic, Publicaciones, Investigación, Humans, Journals, Confidentiality
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 41 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
