Fraud in anaesthetic research and publication

Harsoor, SS; Gangadhar, SB

doi:10.4103/0019-5049.93334

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But generation of new knowledge cannot be expected as everyday affair. [ 18 19 ] Nowadays, there is an explosion in the number of journals owing to creation of many internet-based journals, specialised journals and the open-access system. Shorter length papers are getting processed quickly.…”

Section: Beware Of Author Inflation!mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a narrative review about how appropriate authorship can be achieved, a brief mention about various scientific misconducts, the reason and consequences of such misconducts and finally, the policies to be adopted by the aspiring authors to avert these problems. The literature search was performed in the Google and PubMed using ‘scientific misconduct’, ‘honorary/ghost authorship’, ‘publish-or-perish’, ‘plagiarism’ and other related key words and phrases. More than 300 free full-text articles published from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and studied. Many consensus views have been presented regarding what constitutes authorship, the authorship order and different scientific misconducts. The conflicts about authorship issues related to publication of dissertation, the area of the grey zone have been discussed. Suggestions from different authorities about improving the existing inappropriate authorship issues have been included.

show abstract

Section: Beware Of Author Inflation!mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 11 ] A committed peer reviewer system and use of beneficial technology by peer reviewers can overcome aberrant attitude in the authors and prevent scientific fraud. [ 47 ] Adopting the Broad Daylight Publication Model may lead to better reviews. This model includes openness at three levels-disclosing submissions and reviews, making reviewers accountable for their actions, reviewer rating by readers and opening up the editorial hierarchy for reviewers with good ratings and reputation.…”

Section: Measures To Improve the Peer Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A committed peer reviewer system and use of beneficial technology by peer reviewers can overcome aberrant attitude in the authors and prevent scientific fraud. [ 47 ]…”

Section: Measures To Improve the Peer Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly peer reviewing′: The art, its joys and woes

Kurdi

2015

Indian J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and publications are an important part of academics. Nowadays, there is an increasing trend amongst professionals including anaesthesiologists to submit scientific articles to journals for publication. Most journals are peer-reviewed which means that the articles they publish go through the peer review process. Peer review is carried out for assessing the inadequacies of research and manuscript preparation so that the best papers are published in a journal. Although peer review is a key part of the process for the publishing of medical research, there are some limitations in the system. Keeping this in mind, all aspects of peer reviewing were searched from books and journals for full text from PubMed and Google search. The information so gathered is presented in this article which focuses on the general aspects of the peer review process.

show abstract

“…The cases of Scott Reuben and Joachim Boldt highlight this. [12][13][14][15] What is driving scientists to publish fraudulent research?…”

Section: A Dishonourable Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fraud in scientific research – birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom

Khajuria

Agha

2013

J R Soc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fraud in research has risen exponentially and recent high profile cases may just be the tip of the iceberg. This threatens to have a major impact on public health, with policy makers and clinicians acting on erroneous data. To address this, the new research "Concordat", a consensus statement on research misconduct, has been published. Can it hold the key to rebuilding public confidence in scientific research in the United Kingdom? This review focuses on the concept of research misconduct, highlighting prominent cases and discussing strategies in order to restore confidence in the validity of scientific research.

show abstract

Fraud in anaesthetic research and publication

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective

Scholarly peer reviewing′: The art, its joys and woes

Fraud in scientific research – birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About