Indian Pediatrics 2002; 39:1097-1098 

Handling Scientific Misconduct

Ethics is, today, a subject of lively public interest. Medical literature is replete with opinions, explanations, advice and guidelines regarding various ethical aspects of conducting and publishing research. As a responsible, indexed journal, Indian Pediatrics has been alive to this international debate and has committed itself not to allow publication of unethical research, irrespective of its scientific merit: much like some other leading journals(1). As a consequence of this commitment, the journal has also introduced an ethical review in the peer- review process.

Sitting in judgement on ethical issues is complex, demanding and, often, embarrassing. It leads to an impression that the Editorial Board presumes that most authors are dishonest. This is not the case. In fact, it has been felt that given the enormous adverse publicity that conduct in research has received, there have been very few cases of serious scientific dishonesty(2). In one study, the commonest complaints related to disputed authorship (34%); fabrication of data accounted for far few cases (11%)(3).

Research is important for the benefit of all children and should be supported and encouraged. However, the Declaration of the Helsinki enshrines the principle that the concern for the interest of the subjects must always prevail over those of science and society. The law also gives a special status to children as a more vulnerable group. A poorly designed study on children, particularly if it involves greater than minimal risk is not only unscientific but, by definition, unethical. It is absurd to merely state that "informed consent" was taken or that approval from a local ethics committee was obtained. We recommend that all readers wishing to conduct research on children refer to guidelines on the subject (4-7).

The menace of multiple submissions, duplicate publication, piece-meal publications and disputed authorship continues. Redundant or duplicate publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published. The Editorial Board has decided to state its position regarding this in the revised "Instruction to Authors", which shall be appearing in our first issue of the year 2003. If a significant portion of the data is common to two papers, this would be termed duplicate publication. It may be argued that there is a difference in emphasis or that the audiences are different. In all such cases, we feel that the authors must cite the original paper or send it along with the manuscript so that the reviewers can take an informed decision. If redundant or duplicate publication is attempted or occurs without such notification, authors should expect editorial action to be taken, besides rejection of the manuscript. We recommend authors to follow the "Instruction to Authors" and also refer to other guidelines on the subject(8,9). Regarding piece meal or salami publications, we feel that data that can be meaningfully combined within a single paper should be so presented.

The Ethics Sub-committee of Indian Pediatrics has been receiving complaints of scientific misconduct from time to time in the last couple of years. These have varied from disputed authorship, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, "salami" or piece-meal publications and even unethical design of the research project. So far, the committee has felt that these acts may be attributable, to some extent, to the ignorance amongst the average researcher about these issues. Given the supposition that there may be no mal-intent, the sub-committee has usually recommended that the submitted manuscripts be rejected with a note to authors giving the reasons thereof. This is done after giving the authors a fair chance to clarify their position.

The Editorial Board does not wish to act as policemen. We shall continue to rely on the honesty and judgement of authors. We would also expect authors to acquaint themselves with the current good practices of research and publication. From now onwards, editors would take all allegations and suspicion of misconduct seriously, that may even result in certain sanctions as outlined in the recent guidelines(9). However, we would also be happy to receive inputs from our esteemed readers and strive to maintain the excellent standing that the journal has attained over the past years.

 References

1. Angell M. The Nazi hypothermia experiments and unethical research today. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1462-1464.

2. Horton R. Scientific misconduct; exaggerated fear but still real and requiring a proportionate response. Lancet 1999; 354: 7-8.

3. Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, Sarvas M, Aakvaag A. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries. Lancet 1999; 354: 57-61.

4. Indian Council of Medical Research. Ethical guidelines for biomedical research on human subjects, New Delhi, 2000.

5. Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on children. London, 1991.

6. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 286-294.

7. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subject, 1993 (updated 2002), Geneva. Available from: URL: http://www.cioms.ch). Accessed October 30, 2002.

8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1997; 277: 927-934.

9. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidelines on good publication practice, 2001. Available from: URL: http://www. publicationethics.org.uk/. Accessed October 30, 2002.