Search

Introduction: Authors submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) must fulfill the criteria of scientific integrity (SI), including issues of plagiarism and disclosure of interest. These data have not been assessed for OTSR and we therefore conducted a retrospective study of (1) potential plagiarism rates, (2) deficient disclosure of interest (for French authors), and (3) correlation between the two., Hypothesis: Suspected plagiarism rates exceed 20% and the non-disclosure rate exceeds 80%., Material and Methods: We analyzed 1 year's submissions to OTSR: January 24, 2022 to January 23, 2023. Articles were checked for plagiarism, using iThenticate software (Turnitin, Oakland, CA, USA), with a threshold of > 20% matching. Conflicts of interest, for French authors, investigated on the French Ministry of Health Transparence website (www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr), with non-disclosure defined by undeclared amounts exceeding €1000., Results: In total, 851 submissions were analyzed. iThenticate identified 152 (17.7%) with > 20% matching to an already published article. This likely plagiarism varied (p<0.01) between geographic origins of submissions. In the 289 submissions by French authors, there were 275 (95%) failures to report amounts exceeding €1000. Combined non-disclosure and plagiarism was found in only 3 articles submitted by French authors (3/289: 1.03%)., Discussion: OTSR applies the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org), adheres to the guidelines of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the French Health Authority (HAS), and has an ethics committee. Plagiarism is a major SI breach, suspected in 20% of submissions. Also, 95% of French authors failed to properly disclose their interests on submitting an article, although this declaration is mandatory in France and is an integral aspect of SI. There are also other forms of misconduct, such as failure to comply with the French "Jardé" law on research involving human subjects, failure to obtain review board approval, unjustified claims to authorship or deficient archiving, that were not analyzed here., Conclusions: Although overall plagiarism rates were under 20% for submissions to OTSR, some geographic areas were more concerned than others. Also, despite reminders by the editorial board, only 5% of French authors made full disclosures; this is a major breach of SI, requiring correction on the part of French authors., Level of Evidence: IV; retrospective study., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

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.

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.

In 1998, a Lancet paper described 12 cases of children with autism, and having been vaccinated (MMR) in the United Kingdom; medias presented the information to the lay public, stating that a link was possible. In 2004, The Lancet published letters responding to allegations against the paper. Later, it was established that no link existed between MMR and autism; few years and many publications were necessary to conclude to the absence of evidence. In 2010, the General Medical Council published a report against Dr Wakefield, first author of the 1998 paper, and showing that the children hospital records did not contain the evidence; hospital records differed from the published paper; the Lancet retracted the 1998 paper. In 2011, Brian Deer, a journalist, published the complete story in theBMJ: in 1996, Wakefield was approached by lawyers representing an anti-vaccine lobby, and they supported the Wakefield research. Dr Wakefield left England; in 2012 he works in Texas, USA, for anti-vaccine lobbies., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. Journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got an impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this article is to present the findings concerning scientific fraud that have appeared in case reports. Deliberate scientific fraud does exist. The fact that most of the documented cases have occurred in Anglo-Saxon countries seems to indicate, not that Anglo-Saxons are more prone to scientific fraud, but rather that they have been more successful in bringing it to light. Since 1974, 72 cases have been reported in which there was either conclusive evidence or else a strong presumption of fraud: one case in Switzerland, one in Canada, four in Australia, 14 in Great Britain and 52 in the United States. Fraud is estimated to affect 2-5% of clinical research trials. Referees and readers do not set out to track fraud. The American Commission has proposed the terms "misappropriation, interference, misrepresentation" to define fraud. Voluntary fraud is hidden and its detection delayed. In well-known cases, more than 5 years elapsed before the information reached the scientific community. Whistle blowers must sustain a determined effort to denounce fraud over a period of 1-3 years if they are to trigger an investigation. Some whistle blowers have themselves been accused of fraud because their claims proved so embarrassing. Fraud can lead to severe accidents and generate expenditure that those responsible, or the institutions they work for, will never pay back. Frauders are usually motivated by the desire for material gain or the desire to become well-known. The motivating factor may be personal enrichment, or a need for funds for a not-for-profit association. People found guilt of fraud always have good excuses. Some simply do not realize what they have done. A knowledge of research methodology and critical appraisal methods can help to prevent fraud. Good clinical, laboratory and manufacturing practice can help to prevent misconduct and trickery. Audits and inspections are another essential means of combatting fraud.