The Stoke CNEP Saga – did it need to take so long?

Wells, Frank

doi:10.1258/jrsm.2010.10k010

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Article analysis The dates of the eligible articles range from 1983 to 2018 with notable peaks between 1990 and 1996, most probably associated with the Gallo [9] and Imanishi-Kari cases [10], and around 2005 with the Hwang [11], Wakefield [12], and CNEP trial cases [13] (Fig. 5).…”

Section: Datementioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature. Methods The search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions. Results A total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%). Conclusions Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

show abstract

Section: Datementioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The story of the CNEP trial is a matter of public record (Box 2) and has been documented in a series of articles in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 17–22. We hope that recognition of the mistakes that have been made will help improve attitudes, governance and regulation in the future.…”

Section: The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of the neonatal Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) trial enquiries on research in the UK: Table 1

Modi

McIntosh²

2011

Arch Dis Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 4 One of its pivotal recommendations was the need to establish a rapid response process through which institutions could call on independent teams of trained external assessors, to investigate allegations of research misconduct. 4 With the exception of one small private organisation, MedicoLegal Investigations, 4 no other capacity yet exists within the UK. 5 Meanwhile there continue to be scandalous and costly delays in investigating allegations and suspicions of research misconduct, and in identifying innocent as well as guilty researchers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: Skilled forensic capacity needed to investigate allegations of research misconduct

Chalmers¹,

Haines

2011

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Stoke CNEP Saga – did it need to take so long?

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

The effect of the neonatal Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) trial enquiries on research in the UK: Table 1

Commentary: Skilled forensic capacity needed to investigate allegations of research misconduct

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About