You are here: CTSPedia>ResearchEthics Web>BrowseBy>CaseStudiesRCR>EthicsCaseStudy011 (13 Nov 2011, MarkYarborough)EditAttach
Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags, tagging instructions
Return to Browse by

Return to RCR Case Studies

Please Comment on the Teaching Quality of the CASE

 

Please rate the graphic:

  • 5 stars = highest rating
  • 1 star = lowest rating
  • SCORE = average of all votes
Graph Rating
12345
Score: 0, My vote: 0, Total votes: 0

EthicsCaseStudyForm edit

Title Two publications too close for comfort?
Long Title Two publications too close for comfort?
Contributor/Contact Dale J. Benos, PhD (benos@physiology.uab.edu)
Contributor Details Dale J. Benos, PhD
Chairman of the Department of Physiology and Biophysics
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
CTSA Alabama
Case Study Provided A manuscript has been sent to your journal. It was sent to two peer reviewers, both of whom recommend acceptance. However, after one of these two reviewers posted his review, he discovered the authors have just published another very closely related paper in another journal, which apparently was submitted at the same time as the one they sent to your journal. Basically, both papers examined mechanisms of apoptosis in isolated cells and reached the same conclusions as to mechanism. In actuality, the paper that was published was more interesting and definitive because it was more clinically relevant to the disease being studied. The reviewer, who pointed out this previously published article, also noted the authors did not cross reference nor allude to the existence of the other article at the time of the initial submission. A perusal of both manuscripts reveals that the same number of figures is present, but in the first manuscript, the apoptotic stimulus was a bacterium and in the second it was a specific cytokine. The organizations of both papers are very similar. What should be done?
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics No Data acquisition_management_sharing and ownership Topics
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics No mentor and trainee responsibilities topics
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics
Inappropriate authorship practices,
Dealing with controversies that arise in authorship,
Scientific responsibilities of authors,
Poor publication practices,
Addressing compliance with ethical standards within articles
Peer Review Topics
The significance of peer review,
Qualities of a good review and reviewer,
Responding to reviewers,
Reviewer roles in ensuring RCR,
Editorial responsibilities
Collaborative Science Topics No collaborative science topics
Research Misconduct Topics No research misconduct topics
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics No conflicts of interest_law_and policy topics
Human Subjects

Citation Benos DJ, Fabres J, Famer J, Gutierrez JP, Hennessy K, Kosek D, Lee JH, Olteanu D, Russell T, Shaikh F, and Wang K. Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education 29: 59-74, 2006.
URL http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/29/2/59
RCR Keyword Manuscript, Journal, Editor, Reviewer
Other RCR Keywords Duplicate Publishing; Referencing; Similar Journals; Responsibilities of Editors
Case Difficulty Quick
Type of Case

Source for Topic Areas Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70.
References

Other

Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 13 Nov 2011 - 12:23:14 - MarkYarborough
 
Copyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding CTSPedia? Send feedback