Some BMJ bits related generally to research misconduct

[Esther12]

Hi everyone. I stumbled upon these articles, but will not have time to read them for a while. They could be of interest to others.

A consensus statement on research misconduct in the UK:

Abstract: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1111

Research misconduct is defined as behaviour by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short of good ethical and scientific standards (Edinburgh 1999). Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, suppression, or inappropriate manipulation of data; inappropriate image manipulation; plagiarism; misleading reporting; redundant publication; authorship malpractice such as guest or ghost authorship; failure to disclose funding sources or competing interests; misreporting of funder involvement; and unethical research (for example, failure to obtain adequate patient consent). Research misconduct is important as it wastes resources, damages the credibility of science, and can cause harm (for example, to patients and the public)

A (related I think) open access draft for comment:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/RIC-DraftForComment.pdf

Possibly of interest:

Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study

Full access, and rapid responses:

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7373

Just as a reminder: the BMJ claimed that PACE showed a 30/28% recovery rate for CBT/GET with CFS.

 

[alex3619]

A version of the consensus statement can be found at: http://publicationethics.org/files/A_consensus_statement_on_research_misconduct_in_the_UK.pdf
I not know if this is the same version as behind the paywall at bmj.

I do not think such a statement can be rigorously applied retroactively in a punitive way. This is not a binding document in any case. It is however grounds for criticizing old research and research conduct, and especially future research. This I intend to look into. Misleading claims made are often couched in very ambiguous terms. Under one meaning they are correct, under another they are not correct. To show deliberate misconduct requires, I think, at the minimum a demonstrated pattern of such misleading claims. A single instance might not be sufficient unless it is a blatant breach.

Bye, Alex

 

[Esther12]

Ta for the thoughts/link Alex.

applied retroactively in a punitive way

I can't imagine them being keen on accountability either!