Scientific Misconduct Hurts
Authors: Christine Laine
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2016)

Editorials17 January 2017Scientific Misconduct HurtsFREEChristine Laine, MD, MPHChristine Laine, MD, MPHFrom American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2550 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Plagiarism and other forms of intellectual theft are far more common in science than one would like to think (1–3). Recently, Annals of Internal Medicine experienced an egregious case of scientific misconduct that I bring to light for 2 reasons—to assure readers that Annals takes such matters very seriously and to serve as an example that might deter such misbehavior.In June 2015, Dansinger and colleagues from Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, submitted a manuscript to Annals titled "One-Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Zone, Weight Watchers, and Ornish Diets for Increasing Large High-Density Lipoprotein Particle Levels: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial." After external peer review, we decided not to publish the manuscript and sent our decision to the authors in July 2015. In August 2016, Dansinger contacted Annals when he became aware of an article published in the EXCLI Journal on 23 February 2016 that was almost identical to the manuscript that he and his colleagues had submitted to Annals. His concern was that an Annals reviewer may have misappropriated the content of his manuscript, plagiarized the work, and published it in the EXCLI Journal. We determined that an author of the article in the EXCLI Journal was, in fact, someone who had reviewed the manuscript for Annals. When I contacted that person, he admitted to plagiarism and I informed the editor of the EXCLI Journal. The journal retracted the fraudulent article in September 2016 (4). As is the recommended practice when scientific misconduct is uncovered (5–7), I informed the leadership of the institution listed as sponsoring the fraudulent article. The institution acknowledged receipt of this information but did not indicate the actions, if any, that it planned in response.This case shows several layers of bold misconduct. First, peer reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the papers they review (5–7). They should refrain from using for their own purposes what they learn during peer review until the work is published and can be cited as the source of that information.Second, the reviewer blatantly plagiarized Dansinger and colleagues' work, reproducing almost verbatim the text, tables, and figures.Third, the reviewer fabricated a cohort of European patients that did not exist—a particularly egregious act that could have resulted in clinicians (unknowingly) basing decisions about patient care on fraudulent data.Fourth, the plagiarized article had many coauthors. These coauthors are also culpable. They allowed their names to be used, apparently without contributing anything of value—not even verification of the study's existence.My colleagues and I find it deeply disturbing that someone whom we selected to review a manuscript entrusted to us would commit such heinous intellectual theft. We thankfully do not have previous experience with such a situation but believe our response was congruent with recommendations (5–7). Although the fraudulent article was retracted, it is worrisome that, at the time this is written, it remains available in PubMed Central without an indication that it has been retracted (8).Dansinger, the author whose work was stolen, provides an impassioned letter to the plagiarizer outlining the harm that this misbehavior has caused for both those who did the research and those who attempted to pass it off as their own (9). Other casualties include the reputation of the plagiarizer's institution; faith in the peer-review process; and, importantly, the public's trust in medical research. Dansinger deserves commendation for the grace with which he has weathered this unfortunate situation and his desire that something positive come from it. His commentary and the circumstances behind it provide a compelling case for educational activities related to scientific integrity. Providing the information that guides patient care is important, and tampering with that process is dangerous. If reading Dansinger's commentary prevents even 1 person from stealing another's work, something good will come from it.References1. Roberts DL, St John FA. Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: a study of UK academics within biological sciences. PeerJ. 2014;2:e562. [PMID: 25250215] doi:10.7717/peerj.562 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Lam B. A scientific look at bad science. The Atlantic. September 2015. Accessed at www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-badscience/399371 on 23 December 2015. Google Scholar3. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One. 2012;7:e44118. [PMID: 23115617] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Finelli C, Crispino P, Gioia C, La Sala N, D'amico L, La Grotta M, et al. Notice of retraction: the improvement of large high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particle levels, and presumably HDL metabolism, depend on effects of low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss [retraction of: Finelli C, Crispino P, Gioia C, La Sala N, D'amico L, La Grotta M, et al. In: EXCLI J. 2016;15:166-76]. EXCLI J. 2016;15:570. MedlineGoogle Scholar5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. 2016. Accessed at www.icmje.org/recommendations on 1 November 2016. Google Scholar6. Wager E, Kleinert S; COPE Council. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). March 2012. Accessed at http://publicationethics.org/files/Research_institutions_guidelines_final_0_0.pdf on 1 November 2016. Google Scholar7. Scott-Lichter D; Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. 3rd ed. Wheat Ridge, CO: Council of Science Editors; 2012. Accessed at www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics on 1 November 2016. Google Scholar8. Finelli C, Crispino P, Gioia C, La Sala N, D'amico L, La Grotta M, et al. The improvement of large high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particle levels, and presumably HDL metabolism, depend on effects of low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss. EXCLI J. 2016;15:166-76. [PMID: 27103896] doi:10.17179/excli2015-642 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Dansinger M. Dear plagiarist: a letter to a peer reviewer who stole and published our manuscript as his own. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:143. doi:10.7326/M16-2551 LinkGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Christine Laine, MD, MPHAmerican College of Physicians21 March 2017 Author's Response Dr. Henderson questions whether Annals of Internal Medicine did not publish Dr. Dansinger and colleagues manuscript when we had the opportunity to review it in 2015 because of Finelli's review, because the editors were "bamboozled by currently popular opinion about HDL, or because it was "unfashionable." Many issues factor into Annals' editorial decision, but the factors that Dr. Henderson raises did not account for our editorial decision. The manuscript was reporting a secondary analysis of a trial that had already been published and we judged the amount of new information it provided to be limited relative to other papers under consideration. Thus, issues of priority weighed heavily in our decision since Annals can publish only a small fraction of the many excellent manuscripts that we review. The actions of the reviewer who stole Dr. Dansinger and his colleagues' work was deplorable. We hope that the public disclosure of the reviewer's action, retraction of his fraudulent publication and the ensuing effects on his reputation will serve to ensure that "cheaters don't prosper" – and help to deter other would-be plagiarists. Dr. Dansinger's commendable behavior and essay aimed at preventing such acts (1) are services to the scientific community. The Editors 1. Dansinger M. Dear Plagiarist: A Letter to a Peer Reviewer Who Stole and Published Our Manuscript as His Own. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:143. doi: 10.7326/M16-2551 Sophie LukashokPrivate Practice, Atlanta, GA24 March 2017 Plagiarism Hurts I read with great interest Dr. Dansinger's Ideas and Opinions piece on his plagiarism experience, as well as your editorial.It brought back some deep seated feelings of my own.When I was a "young" attending, I gave a lecture at a seminar on non-infectious complications of HIV infection. I then went on maternity leave to have my second child, and my boss asked if I could lend my lecture to one of my colleagues so that she could give the lecture while I was away, which I did. When I came back from maternity leave 3 months later, I flipped through the pages of a throw away trade journal ( Topics in Antiviral Medicine), and to my great surprise, found my lecture published verbatim under my colleague's name. I confronted her, and she responded that her superiors had suggested she publish the lecture. I complained to my (and her) boss , and to another senior faculty member in my division who was on the editorial board of the publication. I also tried to contact the editor in chief, I cannot remember if I wrote a letter, I never got any response. No one acknowledged the act of flagrant plagiarism, nor did anything about it. I did not pursue it any further because I did not want to damage my colleague's career, and I could tell she felt remorse for her bad decision. The incident is now over 15 years behind me, but it left a terrible taste in my mouth. Six months after the incident, I left academics, and have been in private practice since. My experience is a minor incident compared to the gross act of plagiarizing a research article, falsifying data, and appropriating credit for years of research. Nevertheless, it was plagiarism. I believe it never would have happened if my institution had a simple and clear cut way to report plagiarism, if plagiarism was reported to an impartial third party and not my direct boss or department head, and if there were clear cut and real penalties for perpetrating such acts.I commend Dr. Dansinger for his courage and persistence, and sincerely hope that his message leads to constructive and positive change.Sincerely,Sophie Lukashok, MD George HendersonAuckland University of Technology16 December 2016 Publishing paper is the best way to ensure cheats don't prosper I work in this area (diet and risk of chronic diseases) and would like to see this paper published. In fact, having read it without knowing it was retracted, I couldn't at first understand why it was. Though its premise did remind me so much of the Dansinger et al and Gardner et al studies that the reason was easily understood.Similarly, I don't see why it was rejected in the first place. Either Finelli gave it such a bad review that the editors took his word, or the reviewers were bamboozled by the currently popular opinion that HDL is not an important marker. This is only true at present if designing a drug, and even then, only if the drug is not alcohol.As far as diet and lifestyle interventions go, HDL (or better yet the fasting TG/HDL ratio) is the most important marker in a standard lipid test. The fact that genetic influences on the HDL count don't influence CHD risk merely highlights how important the diet and lifestyle influences on risk are.If this paper was dropped because it was unfashionable, I expect that fashion to change soon. A proper publication, with changes of course if real reviewers deem these necessary, would be the most fitting and just end to this story. Disclosures: I have no conflicts of interest Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-2550.Corresponding Author: Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Annals of Internal Medicine, 190 North Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106; e-mail, [email protected]org.This article was published at www.annals.org on 13 December 2016. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoDear Plagiarist: A Letter to a Peer Reviewer Who Stole and Published Our Manuscript as His Own Michael Dansinger Scientific Misconduct Hurts Christine Laine Scientific Misconduct Hurts George Henderson Metrics Cited byEnsuring Sustainable Evaluation: How to Improve Quality of Evaluating Grant Proposals?Possibility and Prevention of Inappropriate Data Manipulation in Polar Data JournalOn the skewness of journal self‐citations and publisher self‐citations: Cues for discussion from a case studyIs Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Anonymous Philosophical CommunicationBeyond the Published RetractionScientific Misconduct HurtsGeorge HendersonO desafio da qualidade e integridade das publicações científicasEgregious Plagiarism: More than Misconduct 17 January 2017Volume 166, Issue 2Page: 148-149KeywordsBehaviorDietDisclosureHigh density lipoproteinPatientsPeer reviewRandomized trialsScientific misconductTheft ePublished: 13 December 2016 Issue Published: 17 January 2017 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...