Name and shame but dont give me excuses
Fascinating cloak and dagger tale in the BMJ (link) recently told by researcher Iain Chalmers. Searching for studies in the late 80s to include in a systematic review about epidurals, Chalmers found a paper that was, for the large part, identical to an earlier paper by other authors, but not unacknowledged. Not just a few words here and there, but over half the text and some of the actual data was pinched.
Concerned by his findings, Chalmers contacting John Beazley, one of the paper's authors, who was even more concerned - he knew absolutely nothing about the paper he'd supposedly coauthored. Chalmers wrote to the remaining author and obvious culprit, Asim Kurjak, Professor of obstetrics at the University of Zagreb, as well as reporting the matter to the relevant bodies. Unfortunately, it was only the WHO that seemed to take action, with the university effectively sweeping the matter under the carpet, replying it would appreciate Chalmers's 'tactful handling of the case'. Chalmers now regrets acquiesing in this request.
To cut a long story short, Kurjak's paper was discovered to be an amalgam of two papers - he'd committed not just plagiarism, but scientific fraud. In addition, a book chapter he'd had published was lifted from someone else's PhD thesis.
As Chalmers puts it, universities, journals and professional associations 'need to expose very publicly those found guilty of this form of scientific misconduct'.
I'm not so sure though I agree with the thrust of an accompanying piece by psychology professor, Miquel Roig, who runs the line that teaching ethical writing would prevent much of the problem. Roig says writing can be an arduous task, and he's right, and yes universities should make sure their students know the rules.
But let the responsibility for this behaviour rest where it belongs.
When Professor Kurjak, and others of his ilk, decide to cobble together a publication with pinched data rather than do the hard yards, they know exactly what they're doing.
Concerned by his findings, Chalmers contacting John Beazley, one of the paper's authors, who was even more concerned - he knew absolutely nothing about the paper he'd supposedly coauthored. Chalmers wrote to the remaining author and obvious culprit, Asim Kurjak, Professor of obstetrics at the University of Zagreb, as well as reporting the matter to the relevant bodies. Unfortunately, it was only the WHO that seemed to take action, with the university effectively sweeping the matter under the carpet, replying it would appreciate Chalmers's 'tactful handling of the case'. Chalmers now regrets acquiesing in this request.
To cut a long story short, Kurjak's paper was discovered to be an amalgam of two papers - he'd committed not just plagiarism, but scientific fraud. In addition, a book chapter he'd had published was lifted from someone else's PhD thesis.
As Chalmers puts it, universities, journals and professional associations 'need to expose very publicly those found guilty of this form of scientific misconduct'.
I'm not so sure though I agree with the thrust of an accompanying piece by psychology professor, Miquel Roig, who runs the line that teaching ethical writing would prevent much of the problem. Roig says writing can be an arduous task, and he's right, and yes universities should make sure their students know the rules.
But let the responsibility for this behaviour rest where it belongs.
When Professor Kurjak, and others of his ilk, decide to cobble together a publication with pinched data rather than do the hard yards, they know exactly what they're doing.
posted by ozdocblog at 4:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home