Forums to Address Role of Editors

WASHINGTON-Scientists have begun to consider changes in fundamental publication and research practices in the wake of several well-publicized cases of research misconduct. Panel Backs Journal Retractions Medical journals should print retractions of questioned or fraudulent research even if the lead author or co-authors have not submitted or approved such statements said a top official of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. "Journal editors have a responsibility to keep the scientific record clear," said Edward J. Huth, a physician and North American coordinator for the international committee. Last month the group published a statement on retractions of research findings in the British Medical Journal and in the Annals of Internal Medicine, of which Huth is editor. The statement declared that, if fraudulent or erroneous research has been published in a journal, "the editor should be promptly informed of the final decision, and...the journal must print a retraction." In an interview, Huth said that research found to be questionable or fradulent by a legitimate institution...such as the scientists university...must be followed up by a retraction. Journals should try to contact the authors of such questioned research, Huth said, but the failure of authors to respond to inquiries about proposed retractions shouldn’t block the publication or a correction. Huth said “legal fears" regarding lawsuits by authors who don’t agree to such retractions “may be more apprehension than precedent." He said he knew of no instance in which a journal actually was sued for publishing a correction or a retraction. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors is an informal group of officials from 12 publications, formed in 1979, to discuss issues in publishing research. Representatives include editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet. —Rex Dalton Next year the American Medical Association will sponsor a congress on scientific peer review. A wealth of issues on this critical subject require closer examination, noted conference coordinator Elizabeth Knoll, including such questions as: How are journal editors generally selected? How are reviewers selected, and how many are typically assigned to each manuscript? What instructions are given to reviewers? How are potential conflicts of interest handled? What do editors do when reviews differ? What is the cost of peer review? Would it be better to discard the entire system? Organizers of the congress hope to stimulate scientists to undertake and complete research before the spring 1989 meeting. "Answers to some of these questions might help improve the overall quality of the review process," Knoll said. The review process is under increasing pressure from the continued rapid growth of the scientific literature. That growth, combined with a parallel rise in the number of scientists, strains the scientific community's ability to weed out work that is fraudulent or of poor quality. Defining the role of the journal editor in detecting misconduct is another important issue. As the gatekeepers of scientific information, said Mark Frankel, head of the AAAS Office of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, editors need to look more skeptically at manuscripts. Professional Norms A second forum, to be held this spring, is part of an Institute of Medicine study on responsible conduct of research. Study director Rosemary Chalk said the committee will focus on identifying professional norms in areas that have proven to be "troublesome." She said that standards for laboratory records will be explored, along with supervisory practices, quality assurance practices and procedures for handling alleged misconduct. The committee will also address the question of a general code of conduct for scientists. The committee's report, expected later in the year, will recommend how NIH, editors, professional societies and academic institutions can discourage misconduct and fraud. A AAAS workshop planned for next summer will also investigate professional norms in science. Albert H. Teich, head of the Office of Public Sector Programs, said that "the culture of science isn't often written down. If standards were explicit, we at least might have a basis for assessing whether people were conducting themselves properly." The workshop would be the second in a series of three on misconduct. The first focused on procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct. Adil Shamoo, professor of biological chemistry at the University of Maryland medical school, also is organizing a forum on misconduct. The May meeting is part of his work on a new journal, titled RESEARCH: Policies, Audit and Quality Assurance. Published quarterly by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, the journal will focus on "ensuring the integrity of data," he said. The journal, although written for scientists, will draw on the expertise of non-scientists. "Instead of reinventing the wheel," Shamoo said, "we can borrow knowledge from other industries, such as banking, which is very familiar with the audit process." Shamoo emphasized the need for procedures to deal with alleged fraud. "Right now, rumors, gossip, and newspaper columns indict scientists," he said. "We need established procedures so that whistle-blowers as well as researchers with integrity will be protected." Four years ago, when Shamoo first thought of starting such a journal, he encountered considerable resistance from peers. He said many colleagues were worried that he was inviting outside regulation of the scientific community. Today, Frankel said, some scientists still are reluctant to "expose the inept and unethical. But I believe the majority of people in the scientific community feel that this needs close attention." Carpenter is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.

Forums to Address Role of Editors

Panel Backs Journal Retractions

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of