Article Text

Research misconduct and redundant publication
  1. M RAJAGOPALAN
  1. Consultant Psychiatrist,
  2. Ballarat Health Services,
  3. PO Box 577, Ballarat 3350,
  4. Victoria, Australia

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Editor,—The editorial on research misconduct (Gut 1997;41:1–2) is timely. Duplicate reports, redundant publications and “salami slicing” are products of today’s environment where academics are often judged by the length of their curriculum vitae and number of publications,1-3rather than the quality of work and whether it has any impact on current medical practice. This necessity to publish may be due to institutional pressures, personal ambition, vanity, direct financial gain, or even psychiatric illness.1 The prevalence of fraud is estimated to be around 0.1–0.4% of research studies and over 70 cases have been documented.4 ,5 About 5% of drug trials are thought to involve misconduct of some sort.6Peer review offers little or no protection against fraud.7

A few years ago, as assistant editor of a psychiatry …

View Full Text