Difference between revisions of "Resource:9736d9b3-fbe1-45cf-a5d0-20e19038d394"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies | |Title=Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies | ||
| − | |Is About=This | + | |Is About=This factual case discusses various accusations of scientific misconduct, most notably the practices of guest authorship and ghostwriting. The case starts with various letters to the authors of an article on guest authorship and the editors of the journal, after which both the editors and the authors respond to these letters. |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because=<br /> | + | |Important Because=Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to the guest author over a researcher that does not take part in such practices by awarding the guest author with publications without doing any work. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage the public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of drug trial researchers. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers as well. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss the accusations of guest authorship that were made in a publication, as is done in the present case. <br /> |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important For=Researchers; Journal editors; Journal publishers; Pharma Industry |
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| + | |Has Timepoint=2008 | ||
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency |
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Questionable research practice | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Questionable research practice | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:32, 9 July 2021
ResourcesGuest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies
What is this about?
This factual case discusses various accusations of scientific misconduct, most notably the practices of guest authorship and ghostwriting. The case starts with various letters to the authors of an article on guest authorship and the editors of the journal, after which both the editors and the authors respond to these letters.
Why is this important?
Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to the guest author over a researcher that does not take part in such practices by awarding the guest author with publications without doing any work. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage the public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of drug trial researchers. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers as well. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss the accusations of guest authorship that were made in a publication, as is done in the present case.
