Elizabeth Wager Research Articles

A new dimension in publishing ethics: social media-based ethics-related accusations

PurposeWhistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement.Design/methodology/approachThis paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic, and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined.FindingsFour issues in the Neuroskeptic–Wager case were debated: the solicitation by Wager to publish in RIPR; the use of commercial software by Neuroskeptic to make anonymous reports to journals; the links between “publication ethics” leaders and whistle-blowers or pseudonymous identities; the issues of transparency and possible hidden conflicts of interest. Only one publisher (Wiley) out of 15 scientific publishers examined claimed in its official ethical guidelines that anonymous reports should be investigated in the same way as named reports, while three publishers (Inderscience, PLOS and Springer Nature) referred to the COPE guidelines.Originality/valueNo such Twitter-based case has yet been examined in detail in the publishing ethics literature.

Editorial for issue 2 of 2011, Journal of Evidence Based Medicine

The Journal of Evidence Based Medicine aims to bring you a mixture of articles relevant to evidence based health care, providing examples of the evidence that can help people make decisions about practice, and articles on the methods to generate the reliable evidence they need. We are pleased to present you with such variety in this issue, including a collection of articles which use visualisation techniques to show the growth and spread of the concept of evidence based health care in recent decades, in China and elsewhere. Systematic reviews provide a core source of knowledge for many decisions in health care, and it is important that they are prepared, reported and published in ethical ways. This requires careful consideration of several topics, including the ethics of the included research and literature; as well as ethical practice in the writing of the review, through, for example, the clear reporting of its methods and the avoidance of plagiarism. The researchers responsible for a systematic review should also follow good practice in publishing it, avoiding redundant duplicate publication. These topics and more are the subject of a guidance document, prepared by Elizabeth Wager and Phil Wiffen. This issue also sees the start of a series of educational articles for people working on systematic reviews and using them, which come from a workshop organised by the European School of Oncology (ESO) in Dublin, Ireland. The first of these covers searching for studies. Patient safety is an increasing concern for healthcare systems around the world, with a large amount of literature already available. This month, we publish a review that found more than 6,000 articles on patient safety, which had been published in China during the last decade. By far the most common topic was nosocomial infection, such that four in every five of the reports tackled this. In a separate article, a team of authors from Bahrain and India describe the role of zoonoses as a source of ill health, caused by infections passing from animals to humans. It proposes a systems approach to this challenge, and suggests The Cochrane Collaboration as the platform to initiate a new group to investigate this through systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Finally, from their solid foundations in answering questions about the effects of interventions, systematic reviews are now tackling other new and challenging areas as well. This includes questions about the relationship between genes and health outcomes, and we include the first systematic review of research assessing the relationships between the human major histocompatibility complex class I-related gene A (MICA) and poor outcomes for patients having solid organ transplants.

COPE's retraction guidelines

Editors have a duty to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. “Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted.” 1 COPECode of conduct. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf Google Scholar So states the Code of Conduct that all members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) should follow. Yet, editors are sometimes reluctant, 2 Sox HC Rennie D Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 609-613 Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar they might encounter barriers by institutions or authorities to conduct a fair and speedy investigation with publicly available results, and there is a diversity of approach in how and why articles are retracted. 3 Atlas MC Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004; 92: 242-250 PubMed Google Scholar In a 2004 analysis, very few of 122 journals had a retraction policy. 3 Atlas MC Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004; 92: 242-250 PubMed Google Scholar Elizabeth Wager and Peter Williams presented an analysis of 312 retractions from 1988 to 2008 at the Peer Review Congress in Vancouver, BC, Canada, earlier this year (Wager E, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, UK; personal communication). Reasons for retraction were: fabrication (5%), falsification (4%), plagiarism (16%), redundant publication (17%), disputed authorship or data ownership (5%), inaccurate or misleading reporting (4%), honest research errors (28%), non-replicable findings (11%), and not stated (9%). So at least 42%, likely more, were due to misconduct. In an earlier analysis, 4 Nath SB Marcus SC Druss BG Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?. Med J Aust. 2006; 185: 152-154 PubMed Google Scholar 27% of 395 articles were retracted because of scientific misconduct.

Getting research published: an A-Z of publication strategy Elizabeth Wager Getting research published: an A-Z of publication strategy Radcliffe 152 £21.95 1857756878 1857756878 [Formula: see text

Any book that begins to unravel the mysteries of getting research published is to be welcomed with open arms by the nurse who is hoping to get his or her work into print. This book is an A-Z guide to publication strategy, written by an extremely experienced author of research publications. Elizabeth Wager has been an editor for Blackwell Scientific as well as an author for various drug companies, and is now a freelance writer.

Getting research published – an A to Z of publication strategyGetting research published – an A to Z of publication strategy Elizabeth Wager Radcliffe 152pp £21.95 1 85775 687 8 1857756878

An interesting and up-to-date guide to publishing biomedical and healthcare research in peer-reviewed journals, Getting Research Published is primarily aimed at those dealing with medicine and science, although many of the useful tips provided throughout are also applicable to those wishing to publish nursing research.

Reflecting in the swampy lowlands

Holidays are a good time for reflection, and it feels like holiday time in the BMJ office: the air is hot and the office quiet and half empty. So it is fitting that this week's BMJ offers a fair amount of quiet reflection. Some of this reflection is internal. Almost four years ago the BMJ set up its own ethics committee, and on page 510 Elizabeth Wager tells its story. We set up the committee, among other things, to help us with difficult cases. Readers might think that much of what editors do—sit and read papers—is a gentle activity, with …

Fraud and misconduct in clinical research

Contributors Preface SECTION 1: SETTING THE SCENE 1. The concept of scientific dishonesty: Ethics, value systems, and research - Povl Riis 2. Ethical issues in the publication process - Richard Smith 3. What is research misconduct? - Drummond Rennie and C Kristina Gunsalus SECTION 2: THE HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 4. An interpretive history of research misconduct policy in the USA and Canada - Nicholas H Steneck 5. Historical aspects of research misconduct: Europe - Frank Wells SECTION 3: THE PREVENTION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 6. The promotion of good publication practice - Elizabeth Wager 7. Monitoring medical research: Better to prevent than to cure? - Helena van den Dungen 8. The role of research ethics committees - John Saunders SECTION 4: APPROACHES TO THE DETECTION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 9. The role of the whistleblower - Sabine Kleinert 10. The role of the peer review process - Ana Marusic 11. Can statistical analysis reveal research misconduct? - Stephen Evans 12. The role of electronic tracking in monitoring data output in clinical trials - Erick Gaussens, Pierre-Henri Bertoye, and Jean-Marc Husson 13. The role of monitoring of research for compliance and detecting misconduct - Michael R Hamrell 14. The role of routine enhanced audit - Nicky Dodsworth SECTION 5: INVESTIGATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 15. Handling whistleblowers: Bane and boon - C Kristina Gunsalus and Drummond Rennie 16. Conduct of an inquiry into alleged misconduct - Jane Barrett SECTION 6: THE WAY FORWARD 17. The role of national advisory bodies - Michael Farthing Index