FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2132336547> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2132336547 endingPage "34" @default.
• W2132336547 startingPage "34" @default.
• W2132336547 abstract "Bone & Joint 360Vol. 1, No. 5 Mail360Free AccessData falsification should be a criminal offenceA. E. GrossA. E. GrossProfessor of SurgeryCorrespondence should be sent to Professor A. E. Gross; e-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected]Mount Sinai Hospital, Division of Arthroplasty, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Oct 2012https://doi.org/10.1302/2048-0105.11.360087AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsAdd to Favourites ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Dear Sir,I read with interest the two articles on academic fraud in the August 2012 issue of Bone & Joint360.1,2 They are well-written, thought-provoking and a must read for researchers and clinicians. Written by two highly respected medical professionals, they have a slightly different perspective and emphasis.Marcovitch’s article focuses more on fraud, the falsification of data to support invalid conclusions, and gives examples of this in the literature. To some degree he also talks about plagiarism but the article by Rajasekaran puts more of an emphasis on this and in particular about what he feels is the underlying cause (i.e. publish to flourish) of this problem.Cheating in publishing should be divided into fraud and plagiarism and not grouped together. Both are forms of cheating with some overlap but they are very different in their motivation and the problems they create. Fraud is the creation of false data that can lead to conclusions that may be harmful to patients, such as the Cruz articles3-5 alluded to by Marcovitch. Plagiarism, which comes in different forms and is explained by Rajasekaran, is used to enhance academic careers. Both are forms of cheating with harmful consequences but I see fraud as potentially more immediately harmful to patient welfare. The detection of both forms of cheating is difficult and I think the punishment for each should be treated differently.The reason detection of both is difficult is because reviewers for journals and grant applications are experts who really do not have enough time for this exercise and are not compensated appropriately. I recognise that journals and granting agencies have their own paid employees who do the lion’s share of the review process but they are still dependent on the experts in the field. As far as I know, the journals at least try to make a profit, but they expect reviewers to give their expertise gratis. I think reviewers should be paid. In addition, perhaps at the end of every article there should be an acknowledgement to the reviewer, which would not only serve as recognition, but also make the reviewer more accountable. Also, for important articles that may affect patient care, the reviewer should have access to the data that are the basis for the conclusions of the paper. Grant awarding bodies should review the data of the research that they funded before it is submitted for publication.The punishment for fraud, if it has implications for patient care, should be very harsh. It should not only lead to loss of licence and position, but also should be dealt with by civil courts. The reference to the Korean researcher6,7 in the article by Rajasekaran illustrates how a dishonest researcher was allowed to continue performing research in his country in a private facility. Facing criminal charges for falsifying data would be a significant deterrent.Plagiarism in its many forms is motivated by the ‘publish or perish’ philosophy. Scientists and clinicians pad their resumés by publishing articles that use the same data that have previously been used in a major article in multiple lesser journals, many of which are by invitation. As suggested by Rajasekaran, only the author’s best four or five papers should be considered when he or she is being considered for a job, promotion or peer-reviewed funding. Another method would be to assign a scoring system awarding points for prestigious reputable journals, full articles versus abstracts, original research versus duplication, etc. Instead of counting the number of articles, total points awarded would be more meaningful. This method would be more beneficial to the very productive academic who may have more than four or five best articles to be considered.There is certainly no easy solution for academic cheating. I think reviewers should be compensated and in some way be accountable. Falsification of data that may affect patient care should be a criminal offence.Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC, O.Ont, Professor of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Division of Arthroplasty, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, Canada References 1 Marcovitch H. Can you believe all that you read in the medical journals? Bone & Joint 360 2012;1(4):2–4. Link, Google Scholar2 Rajasekaran S. Publish to flourish: is it corrupting science? Bone & Joint 360 2012;1(4):5–7. Link, Google Scholar3 Cruz C, Minoja G, Okuchi K. Improving clinical outcomes from acute subdural haematomas with emergency preoperative administration of high doses of mannitol: a randomized trial. Neurosurgery 2001;49:864–871. ISI, Google Scholar4 Cruz C, Minoja G, Okuchi K. Major clinical and physiological benefits of early high doses of mannitol for intraparenchymal temporal lobe hemorrhages with abnormal papillary widening: a randomized trial. Neurosurgery 2002;51:628–638. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar5 Cruz C, Minoja G, Okuchi K, Facco E. Successful use of the new high-dose mannitol treatment in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale Scores of 3 and bilateral abnormal papillary widening: a randomized trial. J Neurosurg 2004;100:376–383. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar6 Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 2004;303:1669-1674. Erratum in: Science 2005;310:1769. Retraction in: Kennedy D. Science 2006;311:335. Google Scholar7 Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, et al. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 2005;308:1777-1783. Erratum in Science 2005;310:1769. Retraction in Kennedy D. Science 2006;311:335. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 1, No. 5 Metrics History Published online 1 October 2012 Published in print 1 October 2012 InformationCopyright © 2012, The British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery: All rights reservedPDF download" @default.
• W2132336547 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2132336547 creator A5045895913 @default.
• W2132336547 date "2012-10-01" @default.
• W2132336547 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2132336547 title "Data falsification should be a criminal offence" @default.
• W2132336547 cites W1973413637 @default.
• W2132336547 cites W2027820440 @default.
• W2132336547 cites W2097679827 @default.
• W2132336547 cites W2138180020 @default.
• W2132336547 cites W2155143410 @default.
• W2132336547 cites W2244921502 @default.
• W2132336547 doi "https://doi.org/10.1302/2048-0105.11.360087" @default.
• W2132336547 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2132336547 type Work @default.
• W2132336547 sameAs 2132336547 @default.
• W2132336547 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2132336547 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2132336547 hasAuthorship W2132336547A5045895913 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C2778024590 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C2779390046 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConcept C95121780 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C108827166 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C142724271 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C151719136 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C15744967 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C17744445 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C199539241 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C204787440 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C2778024590 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C2779390046 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C41008148 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C41458344 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C71924100 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C77805123 @default.
• W2132336547 hasConceptScore W2132336547C95121780 @default.
• W2132336547 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2132336547 hasLocation W21323365471 @default.
• W2132336547 hasOpenAccess W2132336547 @default.
• W2132336547 hasPrimaryLocation W21323365471 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W1551361301 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2048972539 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2054740312 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2132336547 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2412076476 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2898983505 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2906003413 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W3213767269 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W4296472389 @default.
• W2132336547 hasRelatedWork W2753676614 @default.
• W2132336547 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W2132336547 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2132336547 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2132336547 magId "2132336547" @default.
• W2132336547 workType "article" @default.