Search

Although the underrepresentation of women in publication is a proven fact, there is no information on its counterpart: retractions. Using a previously studied cohort of retractions, the gender of the first author was checked manually to see if there was a similar pattern in the reasons for retraction for women and men authors. Out of 120 retractions, gender was identified for 113 (94.2%). A total of 42 (37.2%) retractions concerned publications authored by women and the reasons for retraction were significantly different between men and women authors. Overall, fraud and plagiarism accounted for 28.6 and 59.2% of women and men-authored retractions, respectively. These findings may have implications as regards training in responsible conduct in research; however, without further investigating larger cohorts and a better understanding of underlying mechanisms, it would be premature to draw any firm conclusions at this stage.

The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to compare the number of submissions until acceptance and the time to publication between articles co-authored and articles not co-authored by statisticians., Methods: We randomly selected 781 articles published in 2016 in 18 high impact factor journals of general internal medicine and primary care. For each article, we retrieved its date of submission to the journal and its first publication; we also contacted its corresponding author and asked about the number of submissions necessary from the first submission to a journal until acceptance and whether the article was co-authored by a statistician. After having excluded qualitative studies, we compared the articles co-authored with those not co-authored by statisticians in terms of number of submissions and submission-to-publication time, using negative binomial and Cox regressions, adjusted for intracluster correlations., Results: One hundred fifty-eight authors completed the questionnaire (20%); 136 articles with quantitative design were included in the study. Overall, 63 articles (46%) were co-authored by statisticians. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of submissions (statistician group: mean 2.1 (SD 1.1) versus 2.2 (SD 1.2), P value 0.87). By contrast, we found a statistically significant difference in the submission-to-publication time (statistician group: median 211 days [interquartile range (IQR) 171] versus 260 (IQR 144); hazard ratio 1.44 (95% CI 1.01-2.03), adjusted P value 0.04)., Conclusions: Papers co-authored by statisticians have a shorter time to publication. We encourage researchers to closely involve statisticians in the design, conduct and statistical analysis of research, not only to ensure high standards of quality but also to speed up its publication., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Scientific integrity: the french proposals to implement the national charter. Individual responsibility of the researcher in case of scientific misconduct is full. The researcher ensures the integrity of his research. Breaches of scientific integrity have been underestimated or ignored and not treated by research organizations and universities. Since 1999, Inserm has set up a delegation in scientific integrity. The Second World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in July 2010, defined the principles and recommendations on scientific integrity. In 2011, a "European code 'of conduct for research integrity was published for the European scientific community. In July 2014, the CNRS has published a guide "Promoting research integrity and responsibility". A national charter of deontology of the research profession was signed in January 2015 by public research organizations. The Secretary of State for Higher Education and Research requested in 2016 a report entitled "Review and proposals to implement the national charter of deontology". The main proposals are based on an explicit recognition of this problem, the appointment of a "scientific integrity" referent in institutions, to coordinate the information and training policy on scientific integrity, and handle allegations of misconduct. A network of these referents should coordinate these actions. The report recommends the creation of a national structure, tentatively named the French Office of Scientific Integrity. A new approach to science was born with digital sciences. Scientific integrity is consubstantial with the opening of science to all., Competing Interests: P. Corvol déclare avoir participé à des activités de conseil pour les entreprises Quantum Genomics et HRA Pharma. H. Maisonneuve déclare avoir une participation financière dans le capital de l’entreprise H2MW Hervé Maisonneuve Medical Writing.

Competing Interests: P. Corvol déclare avoir participé à des activités de conseil pour les entreprises Quantum Genomics et HRA Pharma. H. Maisonneuve déclare avoir une participation financière dans le capital de l’entreprise H2MW Hervé Maisonneuve Medical Writing.

Objectives: To assess the knowledge and behaviour of researchers regarding criteria for authorship, and the practices of ghost and gift authorship., Design: Semidirective interviews of senior clinical researchers., Setting: University hospital., Participants: Thirty-nine main investigators of clinical research programmes., Main Measurements: Awareness and use of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship, and perceptions about ghost and gift authorship., Results: A total of 48 protocols submitted by 42 principal investigators between 1994 and 1996 were identified. Thirty-nine investigators were contacted; 37 (one of whom delegated a co-author) were interviewed between May 2002 and March 2003. Two co-authors of two principal investigators were also interviewed. In all, 42 studies were represented. The interviews lasted for 40-90 minutes and were conducted with openness and respect for confidentiality. The choice of names of co-authors did not follow the ICMJE recommendations. Half of the respondents stated they were aware of criteria for authorship and knew of ICMJE, but most of them did not cite any of the ICMJE criteria among those they applied in deciding authorship. Most of them disagreed with the obligation to meet the three criteria justifying co-authorship because they found these too rigid and inapplicable. Gift authorship was a common practice; 59% of the respondents had been a recipient of gift authorship. Twenty-five (64%) were aware of ghost authorship and the majority considered it questionable and blameworthy., Conclusions: The ICMJE criteria were ignored by clinicians at a university hospital. Ghost and gift authorship were frequent among them. There is a need for French guidelines for authorship to be prepared and implemented.