Publication Ethics: Whose Problem is It?

1. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009; 35: 348-53.10.1136/jme.2008.02832419482976Search in Google Scholar

2. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009; 4(5): e5738.10.1371/journal.pone.0005738268500819478950Search in Google Scholar

3. Committee on Publication Ethics (2008). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code of conduct for journal editors_0.pdf Accessed 19 July 2012.Search in Google Scholar

4. WAME Policy Statement (2009): The relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners. Available at: http://www wame org/resources/policies#independence Accessed: June 8, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

5. Smith R. Editor's Choice. BMJ 2004, doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7457.0-g.10.1136/bmj.329.7457.0-gSearch in Google Scholar

6. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Blackwell Publishing guidelines on publication ethics. Int J Clin Pract. 2006; 61 (Suppl 152): 1.26.10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01230.x180412017206953Search in Google Scholar

7. Wager E. COPE objectives and achievements 1997. 2012. La Presse Medicale. 2012; 41: 861.6.10.1016/j.lpm.2012.02.04922727914Search in Google Scholar

8. Anonymous. Statement of disputed authorship. British Journal of Obstetrics ' Gynaecology. 2006; 113, i.Search in Google Scholar

9. Smith R. Another editor bites the dust. BMJ. 1999a; 319: 272.10.1136/bmj.319.7205.272112691710426719Search in Google Scholar

10. Smith R. The firing of Brother George. BMJ. 1999b; 318: 210.10.1136/bmj.318.7178.21011147079915712Search in Google Scholar

11. Spurgeon D. CMA draws criticism for sacking editors. BMJ. 2006; 332: 503.10.1136/bmj.332.7540.503138811816513691Search in Google Scholar

12. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Medical editors, journal owners, and the sacking of George Lundberg. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1999; 14: 200.202.10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00347.x149654510203629Search in Google Scholar

13. Monbiot G. Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist. The Guardian, 29 August 2011. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist Accessed:19 July 2012.Search in Google Scholar

14. Wager E. Coping with scientific misconduct. BMJ. 2011; 343: d6586.10.1136/bmj.d658622016451Search in Google Scholar

15. Callaway E. Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature. 2011; 479: 15.10.1038/479015a22051650Search in Google Scholar

16. Marcus A. Japanese anesthesiologist fabricated data in 172 studies. Anesthesiology News July 2, 2012. Available at: http://www.anesthesiologynews.com//ViewArticle. aspx?ses=ogst&d=Web+Exclusives&d_id=175&i=ISSUE%3a+June+2012&i_id=854&a_id=21194 Accessed: July 19, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

17. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature. Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006; 144: 609.13.10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-0012316522625Search in Google Scholar

18. Elia N, Tramer M, Wager E. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLOS One. 2014; 9: e85846.10.1371/journal.pone.0085846389911324465744Search in Google Scholar

19. Wager E, Kleinert S. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on reseach integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas. 2012; 72: 165.9.10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.03.01122541357Search in Google Scholar

20. Wager E. Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas. 2008; 62: 109.12.10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.00119147308Search in Google Scholar

21. Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine. 2007; 9(3): 16.Search in Google Scholar

22. Shao J, Shen H. The outflow of academic papers from China: why is it happening and can it be stemmed? Learned Publishing. 2011; 24: 95.7.10.1087/20110203Search in Google Scholar

23. Fauber J. Journal editor gets royalties as articles favor devices. 2010. Available at:www.jsonlinecom/watchdog/watchdogreports/80036277.html Accessed: May 9, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

24. Lenzer J. Journal editor gets $20m in royalties and $2m in fees from device manufacturer. BMJ 2010; 340: c495.10.1136/bmj.c495Search in Google Scholar

25. Marusi. A, Bates T, Ani. A, Marusi. M. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Current Medical Research ' Opinion. 2006; 22(6): 1035.44.10.1185/030079906X10488516862642Search in Google Scholar

26. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 335: 2779.87.10.1056/NEJMsa053234156838616382064Search in Google Scholar

27. Wager E, Williams P. Hardly “worth the effort”? Medical journals' policies and their editors and publicshers views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitativeand qualitative study. BMJ. 2013; 347: f5248.10.1136/bmj.f5248380548924014339Search in Google Scholar

28. Kleinert S. Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recyling. Lancet. 2011; 377: 281.2.10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60075-5Search in Google Scholar

29. White C. Software makes it easier for journals to spot image manipulation. BMJ. 2007; 334: 607.10.1136/bmj.39160.666204.BD183204917379893Search in Google Scholar

30. Rossner M. How to guard against image fraud. The Scientist. March 2006; 24.5.Search in Google Scholar