Page 174 - Academic and Research Book_WEB

4. If editors are presented with convincing evidence — perhaps by reviewers — of serious
misconduct, they should immediately pass this on to the employers, notifying the author(s) that
they are doing so.
5. If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing evidence, then editors
should confidentially seek expert advice.
6. If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then they should notify the employers.
7. If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes should proceed in the
normal way.
8. In the case of medical journals or papers, if presented with convincing evidence of serious
misconduct, where there is no employer to whom this can be referred, and if the author(s) are
registered doctors, cases can be referred to the General Medical Council.
9. If, however, there is no organization with the legitimacy and the means to investigate, then the
editor may decide that the case is sufficiently important to warrant publishing something in the
journal. Legal advice will then be essential.
10. If editors are convinced that an employer has not conducted an adequate investigation of a
serious accusation, they may feel that publication of a notice in the journal is warranted. Legal
advice will be essential.
11. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious misconduct.

Less Serious Misconduct

1. Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve employers in less serious cases of
misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare
conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence may speak for itself, although it may be wise to
appoint an independent expert.
2. Editors should remember that accusations of even minor misconduct may have serious
implications for the author(s), and it may then be necessary to ask the employers to investigate.
3. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.
4. If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions outlined below.

Sanctions

Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are ranked in approximate order of
severity:

1. A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine
misunderstanding of principles.
2. A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
3. A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
4. Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
5. An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
6. Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the
misconduct, for a stated period.
7. Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other
editors and the indexing authorities.
8. Reporting the case to the General Medical Council, or other such authority or organization
which can investigate and act with due process.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND RESEARCH QUALITY | 163