whistleblowers

Individuals who make allegations about research or publication misconduct and the handling of these individuals

Search results

  1. Duplicate publication allegation

    11-20 Our journal (journal A) received a complaint from a 'Clare Francis' alerting us to a case of duplicate publication involving our journal and another (journal B). The article in journal A was published first, but ...

  2. Mislabelling/duplicate images

    11-09 We were contacted by a reader who told us that he had spotted a number of cases of image duplication and mislabelling of fluorescent tags that had occurred over the past 4 years. These involved two papers published in our journal, ...

  3. Retraction of article from 1994

    07-39 Professor A and professor B has been in a dispute over a certain type of treatment for over 15 years. Professor A has accused professor B of killing a patient while he was (in professor A’s view) doing research on the patient ...

  4. Duplicate publication?

    07-09 The editors of this journal check all articles against Medline for possible redundant publications. Two very similar articles from an author were retrieved when the name of the author was searched. The titles were very similar, ...

  5. Allegations of scientific fraud and unethical conduct of experiments with attempts to silence the whistleblower

    98-17 The allegations of fraud  ...

  6. Russian scientific misconduct

    04-33 A letter was sent to an editor, claiming that scientific misconduct had taken place in Russia. The editor did not want to ignore the issue, which was not related to submitted papers and could not be published as a letter. But s/he ...

  7. Anonymous information

    04-20 We have received an allegation from an anonymous phone caller that an author has been wrongly omitted from a Viewpoint published 2 years ago. The claim was made that the author's contribution was suppressed by the institution. ...

  8. An accusation of fraud in a rejected paper

    04-02 A paper was reviewed by two referees. The associate editor dealing with it recommended rejection as both reviews were critical of the methods, results, and reproducibility of the experiment. After the authors were informed, the ...