Pharmalot's Ed Silverman asks, what is the conclusion? Either there is more fraud or more policing? Ivan Oransky, the executive editor of Reuters Health and a co-founder of the Retraction Watch blog that began recently in response to the spate of retractions, writes us that the simple use of eyeballs and software that can detect plagiarism has made it possible to root out bad papers.
He also notes, however, that there are more journals, which explains why there are more papers, in general, being published. “So the question is whether there have been more retractions per paper published,” Oransky writes, and then points to a chart to note that were, indeed, many more.
“That’s really no surprise, given the increasing numbers of eyeballs on studies, and the introduction of plagiarism detection software. It’s unclear whether the actual amount of misconduct and legitimate error has grown; it may just be that we’re picking up on more of it,” he continues. “What makes it difficult to tell is a problem we often see at Retraction Watch: Opaque and unhelpful retraction notices saying only ‘this study was withdrawn by the authors.’ How does that make for transparent science? We think journals can do a lot better, by demanding that authors and institutions come clean about what went wrong.”
And why is there more fraud? As the Wall Street Journal notes, there is a lot to be gained - by both researchers and journal editors - to publish influential papers. “The stakes are so high,” The Lancet editor Richard Horton tells the Journal. “A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It’s your passport to success.”
A few notable retractions include an episode at the Mayo Clinic, where a decade of cancer research - which was partly taxpayer-funded - was undermined after the clinic realized that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. A total of 17 papers published in nine research journals were retracted and one researcher, who maintained innocence, was fired.
Recently, 18 journals indicated plans to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist, many concerning a drug used for maintaining blood pressure during surgery. Meanwhile, authorities in the UK are reviewing usage guidelines and a prosecutor in Germany is conducting a criminal probe, because data may have been fabricated.
And the Journal goes into detail in one instance. A 2003 paper in The Lancet that compared two high blood pressure meds and found to be much better in combination than either alone. Patients given the combination experienced a 76 percent drop in protein loss, compared with 42 percent with one drug by itself and 44 percent with the other one alone.
The dramatic findings prompted suspicion, which led to a lengthy investigation, but one that took very long. After noting “serious concerns,” The Lancet did not issue a retraction for more than six years. By then, however, more than 100,000 patients had been prescribed the combo and thousands of people are probably still taking the drugs.
An investigation by a Japanese hospital where the lead author had worked found the researchers never obtained proper patient consent or approval for the study from the ethics committee of the hospital where they said the research was done. And the involvement of a statistician in the clinical trial could not be verified.
One of the doctors who suspected article was dubious criticized The Lancet and its peer reviewers for not being more skeptical about the dramatic results. “Journals all want to have spectacular results,” Regina Kunz tells the paper. “Increasingly, they’re willing to publish more risky papers.”
The Lancet’s Horton pooh-poohs her criticism, and insists journals are becoming more conservative about publishing “provocative” research. But he concedes journals lack adequate systems to investigate misconduct. The apparent rise in scientific fraud, he tells the Journal, “is a scar on the moral body of science.”
The Use of Company Payment Data
Susan Chimonas, PhD; Zachary Frosch, BA; David J. Rothman, PhD
Arch Intern Med. Published online September 13, 2010. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.341
ABSTRACT
Background: It has become standard practice in medical journals to require authors to disclose their relationships with industry. However, these requirements vary among journals and often lack specificity. As a result, disclosures may not consistently reveal author-industry ties.
Methods: We examined the 2007 physician payment information from 5 orthopedic device companies to evaluate the current journal disclosure system. We compared company payment information for recipients of $1 million or more with disclosures in the recipients' journal articles. Payment data were obtained from Biomet, DePuy, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, and Zimmer. Disclosures were obtained in the acknowledgments section, conflict of interest statements, and financial disclosures of recipients' published articles. We also assessed variations in disclosure by authorship position, payment-article relatedness, and journal disclosure policies.
Results: Of the 41 individuals who received $1 million or more in 2007, 32 had published articles relating to orthopedics between January 1, 2008, and January 15, 2009. Disclosures of company payments varied considerably. Prominent authorship position and article-payment relatedness were associated with greater disclosure, although nondisclosure rates remained high (46% among first-, sole-, and senior-authored articles and 50% among articles directly or indirectly related to payments). The accuracy of disclosures did not vary with the strength of journals' disclosure policies.
Conclusions: Current journal disclosure practices do not yield complete or consistent information regarding authors' industry ties. Medical journals, along with other medical institutions, should consider new strategies to facilitate accurate and complete transparency.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...rnmed.2010.341