The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8

2020-08-15T10:56:37Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Peer review
|Is About=This article is about scholarly (academic) peer review. In simple terms, peer review is an evaluation of a piece of work by persons from the same or a similar field of work (peers). This process is very important in science, and it is conducted to help journal editors decide what to publish. The purpose of peer review is to detect both the quality and the flaws of the presented piece of work in order to prevent poor research from publication <ref>Wierzbinski-Cross H. Peer Review. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2017;33(2):102-4.</ref><ref>D'Andrea R, O'Dwyer JP. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PloS one. 2017;12(10):e0186111. Epub 2017/10/11.</ref>. It includes checking for methodological rigor, quality of reporting, and critical assessment of conclusions <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8.</ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research <ref>Smith JA, Jr. The Importance of Peer Review: J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1374-1376. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.115. Epub 2017 Mar 22.</ref>. For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts.
<references />
|Important For=Scientists; Journal editors; Students; Peer reviewers; Reviewers; Researchers; Editors; Journals; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=Different publishers have a different set of rules for reporting research and conducting peer review so it is always recommended to familiarize yourself with any specific guidelines which are available on each journal’s webpage. Before you can accept an invitation to review, it is necessary to consider does your area of expertise match the topic of the proposed article as well as your potential conflict of interest. A successful peer review usually contains a clear answer on the question should the proposed article be accepted, rejected, or revised. It also contains a list of any major and/or minor issues, their location within the article as well as explanations and suggestions to the author(s). There are some freely available resources which can help with peer review process such as COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers <ref>COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. www. publicationethics.org doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9</nowiki>.</ref>, Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist <ref>Hames I. Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61</nowiki>.</ref> and the Handbook on Best Practices for Peer Review <ref>Association of American University Presses. AAUP Handbook - Best Practices for Peer Review. 2016. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AAUP-Best-Practices-for-Peer-Review-.pdf</nowiki>.</ref>, published by the Association of American University Presses.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:D37d8de4-899e-458c-aa5d-c0246286dd0f
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review
}}

Resource:E79b824c-1756-40b9-a0d6-80045febf3b8

2020-08-15T10:55:22Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Baltimore Case - In Brief
|Is About=In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore <ref>Weaver D, Reis MH, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D, Imanishi-Kari T. Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene [retracted in: Weaver D, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D. Cell. 1991 May 17;65(4):536]. Cell. 1986;45(2):247-259. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2.</ref>. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community <ref>Hamilton D. Baltimore case--in brief. Science. 1991;253(5015):24-5.</ref>, Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously <ref>Shim K. Baltimore regrets fraud: Apologizes for defense of fabricated data. The Tech. 1991;111(25):1-13.</ref>. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her <ref>Kaiser J, Marshall E. Imanishi-Kari Ruling Slams ORI. Science. 1996;272(5270):1864-6.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible.
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; General public; Research Integrity Officers; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5015/24.1.abstract
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Imanishi-Kari
|Has Timepoint=1986 - 1991
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:E79b824c-1756-40b9-a0d6-80045febf3b8

2020-08-15T10:50:26Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Baltimore Case - In Brief
|Is About=In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore <ref>Weaver D, Reis MH, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D, Imanishi-Kari T. Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene [retracted in: Weaver D, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D. Cell. 1991 May 17;65(4):536]. Cell. 1986;45(2):247-259. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2.</ref>. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community <ref>Hamilton D. Baltimore case--in brief. Science. 1991;253(5015):24-5.</ref> , Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously <ref>Shim K. Baltimore regrets fraud: Apologizes for defense of fabricated data. The Tech. 1991;111(25):1-13.</ref> . The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her <ref>Kaiser J, Marshall E. Imanishi-Kari Ruling Slams ORI. Science. 1996;272(5270):1864-6.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible.
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; General public; Research Integrity Officers; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5015/24.1.abstract
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Imanishi-Kari
|Has Timepoint=1986 - 1991
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e

2020-08-15T10:48:28Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Authorship criteria
|Is About=A well known criteria of authorship states that an author must have contributed substantially to a work’s: conception or design;data acquisition, analysis or interpretation;intellectual content development or critical review;final version approval;and integrity, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.<ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed: June 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=A successful career for researchers is often equivalent to the production and acceptance of peer-reviewed manuscripts. In fact, the number of publications a researcher has is commonly used as a parameter for career progression or funding acquisition.

Authorship matters because the entire research and publication process relies on trust. Authorship conveys significant privileges, responsibilities, and legal rights, and it is fair that only those who have actively participated in the work should benefit from the positive aspects of being an author and being accountable for all aspects of the research.

Although the general guidelines on authorship are common sense, the pressure to be a productive scholar and problems resulting from different interpretations of the general guidelines have encouraged a number of questionable research practices. These include honorary authorship, gift authorship, prestige authorship, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, citation amnesia, multiple submissions and duplicate publication.
|Important For=PhD students; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Postdocs; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Professors
|Has Best Practice=Practice guidelines are diverse and vary according to the scientific field. Rather than rules, professional bodies provide guidelines or recommendations and most of the guidelines leave some room for interpretation.

===='''Medicine'''====
The best-known authorship guideline comes from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria: <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed: June 2019.</ref>‘‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work,’’<ref>Council of Science Editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications: 2.2 authorship and authorship responsibilities. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ Accessed: June 2019.</ref>’’Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content,’’ <ref>The American Physical Society. Guidelines for professional conduct. Available at: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm Accessed: June 2019.</ref> ‘‘Final approval of the version to be published,’’ and <ref>American Sociological Association. Code of ethics and policies and procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Available at: http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf Accessed: June 2019.</ref>‘‘Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved’’. The committee further designates that in addition to excluding a scholar who has not met all four criteria, any scholar who meets all four should be included as an author. Following the authorship criteria, the ICMJE expressly describes contributions that should be included as an acknowledgment, and not authorship (i.e., funding, supervision, writing assistance, technical or language editing, proofreading). <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed: June 2019.</ref>

===='''Science'''====
The Council of Science Editors describes authors as “individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, an author should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All authors should review and approve the final manuscript.”<ref>Council of Science Editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications: 2.2 authorship and authorship responsibilities. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ Accessed: June 2019.</ref>

===='''Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics'''====
Guidelines in the physical and mathematical sciences offer somewhat less precise definitions, such as this from the American Physical Society: “Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.” <ref>The American Physical Society. Guidelines for professional conduct. Available at: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm Accessed: June 2019.</ref>

===='''Sociology'''====
The American Sociological Association includes the following in its Code of Ethics: “(a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” <ref>American Sociological Association. Code of ethics and policies and procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Available at: http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf Accessed: June 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:C37f8873-52e2-4867-bb57-8e798c0b7129;Resource:E11c2017-febf-4986-a02a-4d6d9599d21a;Resource:9736d9b3-fbe1-45cf-a5d0-20e19038d394;Resource:3f71447b-3d00-47a0-94af-720040d717ae;Resource:02bb3069-fdee-41c5-bff0-ee8d2fbfecd2;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct;Case #2: The Unauthorized Translation
|Related To Theme=Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; inappropriate autorship; Plagiarism
}}

Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8

2020-08-15T10:48:02Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Peer review
|Is About=This article is about scholarly (academic) peer review. In simple terms, peer review is an evaluation of a piece of work by persons from the same or a similar field of work (peers). This process is very important in science, and it is conducted to help journal editors decide what to publish. The purpose of peer review is to detect both the quality and the flaws of the presented piece of work in order to prevent poor research from publication <ref>Wierzbinski-Cross H. Peer Review. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2017;33(2):102-4.</ref><ref>D'Andrea R, O'Dwyer JP. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PloS one. 2017;12(10):e0186111. Epub 2017/10/11.</ref>. It includes checking for methodological rigor, quality of reporting, and critical assessment of conclusions <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8.</ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research. <ref>Smith JA, Jr. The Importance of Peer Review: J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1374-1376. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.115. Epub 2017 Mar 22.</ref> For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts.
<references />
|Important For=Scientists; Journal editors; Students; Peer reviewers; Reviewers; Researchers; Editors; Journals; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=Different publishers have a different set of rules for reporting research and conducting peer review so it is always recommended to familiarize yourself with any specific guidelines which are available on each journal’s webpage. Before you can accept an invitation to review, it is necessary to consider does your area of expertise match the topic of the proposed article as well as your potential conflict of interest. A successful peer review usually contains a clear answer on the question should the proposed article be accepted, rejected, or revised. It also contains a list of any major and/or minor issues, their location within the article as well as explanations and suggestions to the author(s). There are some freely available resources which can help with peer review process such as COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers <ref>COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. www. publicationethics.org doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9</nowiki>.</ref>, Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist <ref>Hames I. Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61</nowiki>.</ref> and the Handbook on Best Practices for Peer Review <ref>Association of American University Presses. AAUP Handbook - Best Practices for Peer Review. 2016. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AAUP-Best-Practices-for-Peer-Review-.pdf</nowiki>.</ref>, published by the Association of American University Presses.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:D37d8de4-899e-458c-aa5d-c0246286dd0f
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review
}}

Resource:02bb3069-fdee-41c5-bff0-ee8d2fbfecd2

2020-08-15T10:37:29Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study
|Is About=In this non-randomized intervention study, authors explored whether formal instruction on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria influences medical students' perceptions of authorship dilemmas. They also explored whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept.
|Important Because=Medical curriculum prepares medical students for their future profession by teaching them the facts and rules of medicine as well as other aspects of medical profession, such as professional behavior and ethics.
|Important For=Students; Professors; All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-012-9358-7
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Hren D; Sambunjak D; Ana Marušić
|Has Timepoint=2013
|Has Location=Croatia
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:15de5331-8dc3-4dba-8b81-5abcb412e698

2020-08-15T10:33:25Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud
|Is About=Scientific fraud became front-page news at the end of last year, when a South Korean stem cell researcher admitted to fabricating data about cloned human embryonic stem cell lines that he claimed were created from patients. Much of the press coverage focused on the fallout of his actions on the public's trust in science and the already fragile image of stem cell research<ref>Bonetta, Laura. "The aftermath of scientific fraud." ''Cell'' 124.5 (2006): 873-875.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=The aftermath of scientific fraud can result in harmful consequences for responsible authors, journal audience <ref>Xie, Yun (2008-08-12). "What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?". Science. Ars Technica. 321 (5890): 775. doi:10.1126/science.</ref>, whistleblowers who expose it <ref>Faunce T, Jefferys S. Whistleblowing and Scientific Misconduct: Renewing Legal and Virtue Ethics Foundations. Medicine and law. 2007;26:567-84.</ref>, but also for science itself since these misconducts reduce public’s trust in science <ref>Mojon-Azzi SM, Mojon DS. Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica Journal international d'ophtalmologie International journal of ophthalmology Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde. 2004;218(1):1-3.</ref>. In addition, scientific fraud in medical research can have serious public health consequences since it has a direct impact on the physical and psychological well-being of the individual.
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Students; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(06)00249-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867406002492%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Eric Poehlman; Gerald P. Schatten
|Has Timepoint=2000; 2005
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Authorship; Honorary authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; Medical Biotechnology
}}

Resource:E79b824c-1756-40b9-a0d6-80045febf3b8

2020-08-15T10:26:07Z

0000-0002-5617-6086:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Baltimore Case - In Brief
|Is About=In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore <ref>Weaver D, Reis MH, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D, Imanishi-Kari T. Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene [retracted in: Weaver D, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D. Cell. 1991 May 17;65(4):536]. Cell. 1986;45(2):247-259. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2.</ref>. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community <ref>Hamilton D. Baltimore case--in brief. Science. 1991;253(5015):24-5.</ref> , Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously <ref>Shim K. Baltimore regrets fraud: Apologizes for defense of fabricated data. The Tech. 1991;111(25):1-13.</ref> . The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her <ref>Kaiser J, Marshall E. Imanishi-Kari Ruling Slams ORI. Science. 1996;272(5270):1864-6.</ref>. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible.
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; General public; Research Integrity Officers; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5015/24.1.abstract
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Imanishi-Kari
|Has Timepoint=1986 - 1991
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

User:0000-0002-5617-6086

2020-08-15T04:09:06Z

0000-0002-5617-6086: create user page