Editor’s duty on cases of scientific misconduct

During the lectures scheduling for the IX Research Symposium of the School of Health at Universidad del Valle (which had «ethics on research» as main theme), a lecture about scientific fraud in the agenda was proposed. However, when we tried to find an expert lecturer, it was frustrating to unveil the lack of knowledge on the subject in the Colombian scientific community. The best answer received was that «there are some people who are experts in fraud, but no one with enough knowledge on how to prevent or deal with it».

Scientific fraud is without any doubt the act that generates more repulsion among the scientific community. The descriptions of reported cases in the literature are characterized by the capacity and creativity of some people to create fraud, which is surprising and terrifying due to the seriousness of these acts. After reading the analysis from various perspectives and review the multiples examples that the sociologist Freeland described in his book The Great Betrayal Fraud in Science¹, it is necessary that medical journals play a more active role on the subject, with the purpose of developing an ethical conduct of researchers as well as to discourage all people tempted to commit a scientific fraud.

Scientific misconduct is also an editorial «crime», because scientific journals are the natural media for research communication and it makes them one of their victims. Editors and readers collaboration has allowed detecting some fraud cases in the indexed Colombian journals such as duplication², redundancy³, and authors omission⁴. However, as in the case of other international journals, the response by the editorial committees in each case has been limited to the manifestation of their deception to the authors and the fraud description. In some occasions a review article on scientific misconduct or authors’ integrity appears in a posterior issue of the journal^{5, 6}, but is this really enough to prevent this kind of unethical attitudes?

Scientific fraud affects the editorial processes and exposes the readers to information that is fake or bad in quality. Policies taken against authors that commit fraud are generally soft, so it is very unlikely that these actions dissuade their future acts of misconduct.

Fraud cases in the Colombian scientific literature unveil the lack of processes for their denounces and a proper evaluation as well. Review papers focus on these subject on a preventive approach, lacking an appropriate guidance regarding the correct proceeding when a suspicious event is suspected and editorials committees are faced to their incapacity on generate a precise answer to the authors and readers.

Based on the exposed arguments, Colombia Médica has considered to define a very clear position concerning the editorial fraud and condemns any act that represents a violation to the author’s rights, information rights and veracity rights. In this regard, the journal identifies with the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice by the Committee on Good Publication Ethics (COPE)⁷ and adopts this as the code of editorial ethics to evaluate each denounced case or when there is a doubt concerning the acting of editors and authors. This code is now available on the instructions for authors and the journal will require their acceptance by authors in the submission letter of a manuscript before the start of the editorial process. Colombia Médica has requested to become a member of COPE. This association will provide an ethical formation for the scientific communication, assistance for the editorial committee on punctual cases, and the commitment by editors, authors and readers to stand for the respect of science.

The adoption of an ethical code in publications by the scientific journals of Colombia will make an easier active surveillance policy regarding the fraud and alert the scientific community on the risk of their faults. Moreover, this code will allow a standard process of proceeding and mechanisms to generate a response by the employer institution of the person who commit fraud.

The adoption of the COPE guidelines by Colombia Médica makes clear that the journal acquires a serious commitment with the prevention of scientific fraud, meanwhile the journal will be implacable with any cases in which the evidence suggests an ethical misconduct.

REFERENCES

1. Freeland Judson H. The great betrayal: fraud in science. Orlando: Editorial Harcourt; 2004.
2.Zablah RA. Perspectivas de la diarrea por rotavirus en El Salvador. Colomb Med. 2005; 36 Supl 1: 25-8.
3. Pérez GE. Duplicación, redundancia y ética en las publicaciones médicas. Rev Fac Med Univ Nac Colomb. 2007; 55: 238-9.
4. Carreño M, Velasco CA, Rueda E. Prevalencia de Cryptosporidium spp en niños menores de 13 años con afecciones oncológicas. Colomb Med. 2005; 36 Supl 1: 6-9.
5. Buitrago J. Fraude y engaño en la investigación biomédica. Colomb Med. 2004; 35: 93-100.
6. Martínez O. Autoría científica merecida y responsable. Rev Fac Med Univ Nac Colomb. 2007; 55: 115-25.
7. Committee on publication ethics. Guidelines on good publication. Londres, Reino Unido. Actualizada el 13 de febrero de 2008. (fecha de acceso febrero 13 de 2008). Disponible en: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines

Mauricio Palacios, MD, MSc
Profesor Asistente, Departamento de Ciencias Fisiológicas
Presidente, Comité Institucional de Revisión Ética Humana Facultad de Salud, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia Miembro Junta Directiva
Corporación Editora Médica del Valle e-mail: maopalacios@yahoo.com

Jorge Hernán Ramírez, MD, MSc
Profesor Asistente, Departamento de Ciencias Fisiológicas, Facultad de Salud, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia e-mail: jorgehramirez31@yahoo.com