Editors of medical journals deal with allegations of research misconduct, defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the U.S. as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Research misconduct threatens the validity of science, undermines trust in science and contributes to misinformation and disinformation about science.

According to former editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association Howard Bauchner, MD, “it is important that editors have a transparent and consistent process to deal with these allegations quickly and fairly. Journals are the public conduit for research reports, review articles and opinion pieces and play an important role in adjudicating research misconduct.

“It is important for all journals to have a policy which carefully defines research misconduct and lays out a consistent stepwise approach to deal with allegations of misconduct,” says Bauchner, professor of pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

In a commentary in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Bauchner and his colleagues describe the responsibilities of editors to deal with allegations of misconduct.

They believe journals first need to determine whether the allegation is consistent with research misconduct or may simply be an error requiring a correction or an exchange of letters to the editor. After these initial decisions are made, they believe the allegation should be forwarded with as much detail as possible to the corresponding author.

Bauchner points out that journals vary on whether the individual making the allegation can remain anonymous from both the journal and the author(s). He believes that it is best if the journal is aware of who is making the allegation, since it is possible that individuals may have their own biases, which could influence how the journal handles the allegation.

Bauchner acknowledges concerns about how long it often takes some journals to retract manuscripts. This may be in part because journals do not routinely provide deadlines to authors for a response or due to authors who choose not to respond or are slow to respond to queries about misconduct from a journal.

“Delays in retraction occur because authors can be unresponsive, disagree with the allegations, or request repeated extensions. Delays also occur because institutional integrity officers cannot be identified, or if they are identified, they also request extensions. Investigations can involve multiple authors, are sometimes quite complex, and can take months to conduct,” he says.

Bauchner stresses that a uniform definition of research misconduct across institutions and journals would be helpful.

“We acknowledge how challenging developing such a definition would be, given the various opinions about some concepts of misconduct, for example, undeclared conflicts of interest. Regardless, journals should apply any definition of misconduct consistently, which is easier to do if the definition of misconduct is specific and detailed.”