Falsification Of Data Research Articles

How do you know it is true? Integrity in research and publications: AOA critical issues.

High-quality medical care is the result of clinical decisions based upon scientific principles garnered from basic, translational, and clinical research. Information regarding the natural history of diseases and their responses to various treatments is introduced into the medical literature through the approximately one million PubMed journal articles published each year. Pharmaceutical and device companies, universities, departments, and researchers all stand to gain from research publication. Basic and translational research is highly competitive. Success in obtaining research funding and career advancement requires scientific publication in the medical literature. Clinical research findings can lead to changes in the pattern of orthopaedic practice and have implications for the utilization of pharmaceuticals and orthopaedic devices. Research findings can be biased by ownership of patents and materials, funding sources, and consulting arrangements. The current high-stakes research environment has been characterized by an increase in plagiarism, falsification or manipulation of data, selected presentation of results, research bias, and inappropriate statistical analyses. It is the responsibility of the orthopaedic community to work collaboratively with industry, universities, departments, and medical researchers and educators to ensure the integrity of the content of the orthopaedic literature and to enable the incorporation of best practices in the care of orthopaedic patients.

Study Design and Ethics

A comprehensive policy on publication ethics has been published by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), which addresses all the major areas of ethics which all contemporary science journals should consider The Annals of King Edward Medical University will publish from time to time different parts of WAME's publication policy for its readers, authors and reviewers. Study Design and Good research should be well justified, well planned, and appropriately designed, so that it can properly address the research question. Statistical issues, including power calculations, should be considered early in study design, to avoid futile studies that produce subject risk without enrollment sufficient to answer the research question. Outcomes should be specified at the start of the study. Research should be conducted to high standards of quality control and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific misconduct. Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues. For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. If the study is judged exempt from review, a statement from the committee should be required. Informed consent by participants should always be sought. If not possible, an institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable. Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself. Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements. Journal recommendations for preferred presentation and analysis of data should be described in the Information for Contributors or Authors. Wherever possible, recommendations should be based on evidence about methods of data presentation that are readable and most likely to be interpreted correctly by readers. Editors should keep themselves informed of this research and adapt their recommendations as it evolves. Acknowledgments The Study Design and is reproduced from Policy on Publication Ethics published by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). (www.wame.org)

Global Warming Effects on Irrigation and Drainage Development

As per publication policy of Scholars Report, the article titled Warming Effects on Irrigation and Drainage Development has been retracted at the request of the Editorial Board Members and Authors of the journal. Title “Global Warming Effects on Irrigation and Drainage Development”. Authors: Daniele De Wrachien, Giulio Lorenzini, and Marco Medici The above article is a duplicate version of another article entitled Global Warming Effects on Irrigation and Drainage Development”, published in “Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering”, Published date: January 07, 2016, Volume 5 | Issue 1 | 1000e126, doi:10.4172/2168-9768.1000e126, written by the same authors. Scholars Report apologizes to the readers of the journal for not detecting this omission during the publishing process. We thank ISSN India for bringing this breach of conduct to our attention. SCHOLARS REPORT DISCLAIMER It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication. SCHOLARS REPORT POLICY Scholars Report supports the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) . We follow its Best Practice Guidelines and abide by its Code of Conduct for dealing with potential cases of misconduct. We expect our authors to comply with best practice in publication ethics, particularly with regard to authorship, competing interests, compliance with standards of research ethics, falsification and fabrication of data, redundant publication, plagiarism, figure manipulation and dual submission. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct, we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction. Any concerns about the above should be addressed to the editorial office at connect@scholarsreport.com • Authorship (author contribution or attribution): Submitting authors have to agree to all terms of publication laws and ethics while submitting the manuscript. Statement of responsibility should be included which describes the responsibility of each author in the manuscript. A significant contribution must have made by each listed authors. We encourage to list everyone who made significant contribution (contribution of laboratory technicians and students must be appreciated and accredited). • Images and Figures: We ask our authors to take care not to submit manuscripts containing previously published images or figures, unless express, written permission from the copyright holder to republish under a CC-BY or CC0 license (as applicable) has been obtained. Images, video, and other materials previously published under a public domain, CC-BY, or CC0 license do not require such permission to be obtained. Authors Affiliation 1 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy , Past President EurAgEng 2 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RETRACTED

Research misconduct involving noncompliance in human subjects research supported by the public health service: reconciling separate regulatory systems.

AbstractOver the past three decades, two separate federal regulatory structures have emerged, each seeking to assure separate aspects of the integrity and ethics of research conducted using federal funding. One set of regulations is described in the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct and relates to research misconduct, defined as consisting of fabrication of data or results, falsification of data and results, or plagiarism, in accordance with the federal‐wide definition adopted by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The second set of regulations, set forth in the Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the protection of human subjects (known as the “Common Rule”), prescribes a set of ethical and procedural protections for research involving human subjects.These two sets of research regulations are distinguished from each other by having different foci of enforcement, priorities of protection, oversight officials, oversight procedures, seizure of evidence, standards of proof, expectations of privacy, and appeal procedures for researchers who are subject to adverse findings and penalties. These differences are significant and fundamental. They complicate the process of compliance for institutions and researchers, who are expected to adhere to both sets of standards for the same federally funded research activities in research with human subjects. Compliance is especially complicated when suspected violations of both sets of standards must be investigated and resolved concurrently. This document represents an effort to provide institutions and individuals with practical suggestions as they try to comply with both sets of regulations.

Pathological publishing: A new psychological disorder with legal consequences?

The present study deals with an important problem that currently affects scientists and society, namely, the falsification and manipulation of research and researchers’ CVs, which has considerably increased in recent years. This is shown by some studies, the authors of which have found high percentages of researchers who falsify their CV or manipulate data. We analyze the system used to evaluate science and researchers, which is almost exclusively based on the impact factor. We review the main critiques on the inappropriate use of the impact factor to assess researchers and argue that this has generated a new style of thinking in which the only goal is to obtain publications with an impact factor. Over the last few years, the pressure to publish has led to an obsession among researchers to disseminate the multiple indicators of their scientific publications over the Internet, to the extent that such initiatives look like marketing campaigns where researchers advertise themselves. For all these reasons, we propose that this may be a new psychological disorder, given that several criteria indicating maladaptation are clearly met: falsification and/or manipulation of data, falsification of publication indicators, distortion of reality, belief in manipulated data, and an obsession to conduct marketing campaigns of oneself. We address the important ethical and legal implications of such falsifications. Finally, we discuss the need to change the system used to evaluate science and researchers, which undoubtedly promotes these dishonest behaviors or this psychological dysfunction.

Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India.

This study was planned as an exploratory study to determine the extent of occurrence of misconduct in publication (gift-authorship,ghost-authorship, falsification of data, fabrication of data,plagiarism, and duplication) amongst biomedical researchers.It was a questionnaire-based study, conducted at 9 institutions;6 medical colleges (4 government-run and 2 private), 7 non teaching government hospital, and 2 corporate hospitals, located in northern, central and southern India. The study was conducted between August 2072 and March 2073. 755 senior residents (<3 years after post-graduation) and young faculty members (< 70 years after post-graduation) with at least five previous publications were administered a structured questionnaire, in which no identifying information was collected. In addition to personal characteristics, the information collected included their knowledge of publication ethics, their opinions about the prevalence of these practices among their colleagues, and details of any first-hand information on publication misconduct. 7 55 responses were included for analysis. 7 4 7 (9 7 %) respondents agreed that they had some knowledge of publication ethics; but only 29% believed it was adequate. The most commonly observed misconduct was offering gift authorship, reported by 707 (65%); followed by alteration of data reported by 88 (56%). Plagiarism was observed by 83 respondents (53%); while 52 (33.5%) respondents had observed a colleague's name being omitted from a paper to which she/he had significantly contributed. A majority of respondents in the present study reported witnessing publication misconduct,thereby revealing the common occurrence of this problem among Indian biomedical researchers.

Investigating the effect of academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: a panel study

In prior studies, academic procrastination has been discussed as an influencing factor of academic misconduct. However, empirical studies were conducted solely cross-sectionally and investigated only a few forms of academic misconduct. This large scale web-based study examined the responses of between 1359 and 2207 participants from different academic disciplines at four German universities to address the effect of academic procrastination on seven different forms of academic misconduct (using fraudulent excuses, plagiarism, copying from someone else in exams, using forbidden means in exams, carrying forbidden means into exams, copying parts of homework from others, and fabrication or falsification of data) and its variety. In measuring academic procrastination six months prior to academic misconduct, we found that academic procrastination affected the frequency of all forms of academic misconduct and its variety. We found the strongest effect of academic procrastination on using fraudulent excuses. Implications for university counseling and theory are discussed.

Acta Diabetologica is 50 and well: long live Acta!

Acta Diabetologica has gone through a number of important changes this past year. First, and for the better, its Impact Factor enjoyed an impressive rise. Second, more worryingly, its authoritative and well-experienced Editorsin-Chief stepped down after achieving this rewarding result. Fortunately, Professors Guido Pozza and Renato Lauro, to whom heartfelt thanks are due for their steady guidance of the journal, will continue to make their experience available as Founding Editor and Honorary Editor, respectively. Thirdly, having been established in 1964 as Acta Diabetologica Latina, the journal celebrates its 50th birthday and is the oldest active diabetes journal in Europe. It is with such awesome thoughts in mind that this new Editor-in-Chief took charge last June. His predecessors led Acta Diabetologica to first league among Endocrine and Metabolism publications and entrusted him with the ability to continue their good work. Some of the action to this effect will go under the sign of continuity and some will have to take note of changing times. Rigorous selection of the manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will continue to be enforced, jointly with the two long-serving Managing Editors, Professors Massimo Federici and Antonio Secchi, and with old and new members of the Editorial and Advisory Boards. We shall have to be tough and maintain the current 80 % rejection rate. However, more importantly, we shall strive to be as fair as possible. This Editorial Board believes that quality is more important than quantity and that publishing good articles is better than publishing few articles. No good papers left behind should be our motto, probably not shared by all those authors who will see their submissions rejected. Alas, journal Editors do not make many friends! But a good Impact Factor is not all there is to life of journals, editors, authors, and publishers. More important is the choice of an editorial line that will do its modest share to genuinely stimulate original research in the field of human diabetes and metabolism. This may sound matter of fact but a number of signals emerging from the world of science should be taken very seriously indeed. Karl Popper based his view of scientific progress on the concept of ‘‘Falschungsmoglichkeit’’ or empirical falsification of data, meaning that current wisdom can constantly be proven false when newer concepts are applied to previous knowledge and suggesting that science tends to evolve by correcting itself [1]. But in Popper’s time, scientific research was still an educated hobby for affluent gentlemen. In his ‘‘Gattopardo,’’ Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa provides us with the memorable description of a Sicilian prince who, among other nightly enjoyments, could afford a private observatory to explore the terse skies above his land and even discover one or two new celestial objects, which he duly communicated to the learned societies of his day [2]. Until perhaps the first half of the twentieth century, many new things could be described with a lot of amateurial dedication, sharp intelligence, and relatively affordable means. Today, research is a profession, costly, competitive and requiring complex technical skills, deep knowledge and full-time dedication. Rewards derive mostly from the dissemination of one’s own results, and in today’s ‘‘publish or perish’’ environment, powerful forces tend to derail research(ers) from pursuing the straight line of advancement of knowledge for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Pressure to publish is sometimes stronger than prudence. Staff at a leading biotech firm were able to replicate the results of only 6 out of 53 landmark papers in cancer [3] M. Porta (&) Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy e-mail: massimo.porta@unito.it

What pharmacy practitioners need to know about ethics in scientific publishing.

Pharmacy practice is an ever-changing science and profession. We are witnessing many advancement of pharmacy technology, drug-related information and applied clinical pharmacy literature, which influence our every day's life. Thus, new knowledge generated by research and clinical experience widen the knowledge; change the understanding of drugs and their application in therapeutics and every days life. Thus, policy makers, pharmacists, clinicians and researchers must evaluate and use the information existing in the literature to implement in their healthcare delivery. This paper is prepared for pharmacy researchers and pharmacy students and analyzes the major principles of ethical conduct in general science and also closely related topics on ghost authorship, conflict of interest, assigning co-authorship, redundant/repetitive and duplicate publication. Furthermore, the paper provides an insight into fabrication and falsification of data, as the most common form of scientific fraud. Scientific misconduct goes against everything that normal scientific method wants to reach for and pharmacy practitioners as one the first line available health care professionals all round the world should be enough aware of its importance and details when they want to evaluate the medical and pharmaceutical literature and deliver unbiased and ethically published knowledge of drugs both for the research or during consultations for patients care.

PERCEPTION OF COLLEGE OF EDUCATION LECTURERS ABOUT TECHNICAL EDUCATION RESEARCH AND EVALUATION IN NIGERIA

The study was conducted to ascertain the perception of Federal College of Education Technical lecturers towards technical education research in the South-South geo-political zone of Nigeria. In pursuance of this purpose, four research questions were formulated and one hypothesis tested. The population comprised of 70 lecturers of Federal Colleges of Education (Technical) in Asaba, Umunze and Omoku. The entire population was used for the study. No sampling was done because of the fewness of the population. The design used was a survey. The instrument used was the questionnaire. On the whole 57 items were drawn using the Likert scale format. The instrument was considered valid by experts with the reliability coefficient of 0.89 using Cronbach alpha. Simple percentage and t-test were used to analyse the data. The study revealed that: Government’s inactive role in supporting and promoting research activities in colleges of education (technical) caused low morale of lecturers towards research; A lot of constraints such as poor attitude to research, falsification of research data, among others are the challenges of technical education research. The study recommends among others that: About 10 per cent of the education tax fund should be voted to research; Government should improve its communication network.

Implementation Issues in RFID-based Anticounterfeiting for Apparel Supply Chain

With advancement in Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), RFID-based track-and-trace anti-counterfeiting has attracted considerable research interests. Track-and-trace anticounterfeiting requires a trustworthy electronic pedigree (e-pedigree) to ensure high product visibility. Continuous movements of large volumes of products along the supply chain would generate huge amounts of data, posing great challenges to system development and operation. As such, the front-end RFID data should be well-formatted to facilitate data capturing, filtering, and synchronization, so that the accumulated e-pedigree is complete and trustworthy for subsequent product authentication. In this paper, we present an innovative track-andtrace anti-counterfeiting system for apparel products, and discuss some key implementation issues, such as e-pedigree formatting, tag data processing, data synchronization, and traceability / visibility control. An e-pedigree data format for full traceability of apparel is proposed to support products authentication at item-level, products anti-lost at pallet-level, and products status prediction at batchlevel. With this format, an automatic data synchronization mechanism is established to ensure e-pedigree integrity. This mechanism is integrated with a Tag Data Processing and Synchronization (TDPS) algorithm to create unique product identifiers (PID) for tagging individual apparel items and subsequently synchronize the e-pedigree and related data. Moreover, a parent-and-child containment relationship between items and cartoons is established and stored in the back-end database servers to maintain accuracy and integrity of the epedigree when mis-reading occur at product receiving at supply chain nodes. Lastly, to avoid possible leakage / falsification of e-pedigree data, an RBAC-based access control is proposed as an auxiliary module for the anticounterfeiting system.

On the Property of the Distribution of Symbols in SQL Injection Attack

SQL injection is an attack of type to insert malicious query via an input form on web site. If SQL injection attack were successful, there are the threats of unauthorized access, information leak or falsification of data for web applications driven database system. In the conventional studies, a lot of prevention and detection methods using pattern matching, parsing or machine learning have been developed. However, it is easy to evade detection by modifying the strings of SQL injection attacks. Therefore, it is very important to investigate the essence of SQL injection attacks for preventing such evasion of detection. In this study, we constructed the feature space by using the property of the distribution of SQL injection attack, and proposed an attack detection method. The result of this study is showing the importance concerning the construction of feature space.

The ethics of reviewing

At the time of writing, I had just returned from the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) conference in Cork. The discussion was far from inane with debate ranging from the increasing challenge of publication misconduct to the obligations of editors and an update regarding developments in bibliometrics. There were several thought-provoking presentations that focused on ethics. Findings from a survey report by Shawn Kennedy (Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Nursing (AJN)) and colleagues, for example, related to ‘inappropriate authorship in nursing publications’. Some readers may not have considered the definition and implications of authorship. This can present ethical challenges, particularly when there are ‘honorary authors’ and ‘ghost authors’. Geraldine Pearson, from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), shared examples of publication misconduct and case studies submitted to COPE. These highlighted the serious implications of deviations from ethical practice for participants, researchers, organisations and the research area. Alan Kelly, an editor from University College Cork, offered some other examples of publication misconduct, for example, plagiarism, salami slicing, fabrication and falsification of data. He also shared some of the everyday challenges of being an editor, such as finding reviewers to review manuscripts. He argued that academics who publish have an obligation to review at least two articles per paper published. The obligation of academics to review has been emphasised also by Charon Pierson in a very helpful publication entitled Reviewing Journal Manuscripts. She states,

Il problema metodologico del referaggio: cosa vuol dire «valutare» un saggio

The paper proposes first a «guide» to the practice of refereeing, presenting some prominent examples of «how» are evaluated the products submitted for publication in journals. The examples allow understanding what are the procedures used and the profiles on which assessment is required (originality, structure, data correctness, accuracy of references, etc.). Are then presented some of the most significant problems that the vast literature on peer review has highlighted, in particular: how effective it is, that is able to detect misconduct (falsification of data, plagiarism, etc.), how much is fair, that is able to avoid the creation of systematic discrimination against certain groups of researchers or nonconventional shapes and innovative research, how efficient, ie not responsible for slowing the spread of new research and overloading the best researchers.

Academic Dishonesty

IntroductionAcademic dishonesty is an issue of concern world-wide. In universities it has become a stumbling block genuine research activity, crippling talent and the potential of students who are future leaders every field. The advent of the Internet has made it easier for students to indulge dishonest practices. As Young (2001) has pointed out, in recent years, professors have been frustrated by the way more and more students use the Internet to cheat-by plagiarizing the work of other students, by copying material from online reference works, by buying term papers from online paper-writing companies, and by other means. On the other hand, college and university libraries' records show a bleak picture of borrowing books by the students for their studies and research work. This is an indication that most students depend on web-based information. While this itself may not indicate that such information is being used unethically, it does point out an enhanced potential for doing so.Academic dishonesty consists of any deliberate attempt to falsify, fabricate or otherwise tamper with data, information, records, or any other material that is relevant to the student's participation any course, laboratory, or other academic exercise or function (Delta College, 1999). The Delta College definition further explained that academic dishonesty includes acts of cheating or other forms of academic dishonesty that are intended to gain unfair academic advantage. This includes plagiarism, which is deliberately presenting work, words, ideas, theories, etc., derived whole or part from a source external to the student as though they are the student's own efforts. Other academic misconduct includes falsifying or fabricating data, records, or any information relevant to the student's participation any course or academic exercise, or tampering with such information as collected or distributed by the faculty member. On a similar note, Loyola Marymount University (2012) provides some examples of academic dishonesty, such as cheating and facilitating cheating, plagiarism, falsification of data, unauthorized access to computers or privileged information, improper use of Internet sites and resources, and improper use of non-print media. These various types of academic dishonesty show the complexity of the issue. It is important to understand the complexity and difficulty order to find effective ways to resolve or minimize dishonesty.To deal with this problem a number of universities have introduced policies and procedures. For instance, University of Botswana's (UB) basic goal is to foster a learning environment that helps students to grow personally and professionally, and to attain academic excellence. UB expects all its students to uphold the highest personal and academic standards of honesty and integrity. A task group on academic dishonesty among UB Students was set up by the Deputy Vice Chancellor's office March 2005. Consequently, UB had introduced an academic honesty policy for students. Through this policy UB seeks to promote the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity for all students and to enforce these standards by means of fair, objective, and expeditious procedures (Revised Academic Honesty Policy for Students, 2007).There have been numerous reports, both formal and informal, of the high incidence of academic dishonesty among higher education students. The general perception is that this problem is endemic universities worldwide and some believe it is increasing (Schemo, 2001). Anecdotal and reported evidence indicates that there are many ways which students cheat, and the now widespread use of the Internet universities offers yet another avenue for students inclined to this type of behavior (Szego, 2000).Within the universities under study, many lecturers have informally raised concerns about the increasing incidence of academic dishonesty among students. …

Editorial Policies for Clinical Trials and the Continued Changes in Medical Journalism

The importance of randomized clinical trials is acknowledged by most physicians, professional organizations, and federal agencies. Clinical trials influence practice and are at the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, either alone or as part of meta-analyses. However, many threats to the validity and scientific integrity of clinical trials can occur in their design, implementation, analysis, and reporting. Examples include modifications in primary and secondary outcomes or analytic approaches after the trial begins or after initial examination of data; manipulation and falsification of data; incomplete reporting of all available trial outcomes and selective reporting of important serious adverse events; and failure to report the results of trials with negative or unfavorable results.

The Misuse of Spreadsheets in the Nuclear Fuel Industry

This paper considers the management, technological and human factor issues that led to the BNFL fuel rod spreadsheet data falsification incident in 1999. BNFL discovered in 1999 that some data supporting quality assurance and safety processes had been falsified by BNFL workers using spreadsheets. The implication of this finding was that some of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Pellets shipped to customers in Japan for use in nuclear reactors were of an unknown mass and quality. This meant that the use of the MOX pellets fuel produced by BNFL would introduce uncontrolled factors into the safe operation of nuclear reactors. This paper will examine the production of MOX pellets at the Sellafield site, the falsification of data and the report commissioned by HM Nuclear Inspectorate. The paper will then identify a number of managerial and technological failings that led BNFL to use spreadsheets for recording such data. Finally the paper analyses other cases of spreadsheet fraud and explores some strategies for reducing the likelihood and impact of spreadsheet errors and fraud.

Scientific fraud and the power structure of science

Scientific research typically has been established on high ethical stan- dards created by researchers in research institutions and universities. Scientific misconduct violates these ethical standards. It can take different shapes, such as plagiarism, falsification of data, and irresponsible authorship. The primary focus of this paper is to show the most extreme cases of fraud which are obvious: manu- facturing data and altering experimental results. This is illustrated by showing the fraudulent misconduct in an article published in a corrosion science journal in order to encourage the scientific community to develop mores and guidelines that pre- scribe professional conduct in the routine developing and publishing of scientific works. This paper also presents a proposal that involves conducting data audits of submitted manuscripts to prevent the publication of fraudulent work. The few cases described in this article serve as a ritual cleaning of the house of science. It helps to paint the rest of scientific behavior as blameless.

Interviewing the surveyors: factors which contribute to questionnaire falsification (curbstoning) among Jamaican field surveyors

One of the greatest concerns or fears of either survey designers, survey project manager or those relying on survey data for decision-making, is the falsification of data collected in the field. This practice is called curbstoning. Using the Grounded Theory Methodology, I interview 74 quantitative field surveyors in Jamaica to identify the strategies they use to falsify questionnaires. These field surveyors explain and describe curbstoning methods they have used to falsify close-ended and open-ended questionnaires, as well as questionnaires with verification questions. I have suggested several strategies for mitigating each one of these curbstoning methods. This article has significant practical application for how survey designers and survey project managers in all spaces around the world can mitigate against the curbstoning of questionnaires. This article also helps to start discussions on the falsification of emerging methods and tools for quantitative data collection.

Retraction note: Induction of a pepper cDNA encoding SAR8.2 protein during the resistance response to tobacco mosaic virus. Mol. Cells 12 (2001) 250-6.

Retraction Note: Mol. Cells 12 (2001) 250–256 Members of the editorial board have unanimously agreed to retract the article [Mol. Cells 12 (2001) 250–256] for potential misconducts mainly concerning manipulation and repeated uses of photomicrographs of control data internally along with mislabeling and/or externally in multiple publications. As specified in the “Instructions to Authors”, Molecules and Cells (Mol. Cells) explicitly prohibits mis-representation or falsification of experimental data including duplication of previously published data. In the article, lanes 1-4 and lanes 5–7 of rRNA gels in Fig. 2B are identical to lanes 1–4 and lanes 10–12 in Fig. 3A, respectively; two EtBr gels of rRNA in Figs. 4A and 4B are identical, and rRNA gels in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C are identical as well.