LW: Speaker, Genzyme Corporation, Consultant, Interpace Diagnostics, Consultant, Akrimax Pharmaceuticals. CAL: Advisory Group Member, ARNO Therapuetics. Nothing to Disclose: PJS, RPR, SRH
The Endocrine Society defines scientific misconduct to include plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, publication without approval of all authors, violation of state, federal and the institutional laws as well as honorary authorship. Contributing authors, peer reviewers, and collaborating investigators all have the responsibility to identify and prevent potential misconduct in research. The Editors-in-Chief of the Endocrine Society’s Journals and the Publications Core committee are charged with the management of accusations of research misconduct that arise in the process of manuscript review. This session will include a series of de-identified case presentations and discussions reflecting the experience of three of the Endocrine Society’s Editors-in-Chief. Presentations will cover both clinical and basic research submissions to the Journals. The cases presented will be selected to emphasize a range of examples of research misconduct, their educational value and their ability to generate discussion. The presentations will include how the misconduct was identified, managed, and what follow-up measures were implemented with both the author and his/her institution. The outcomes of these cases also will be discussed in an effort to educate members of the audience about research misconduct. We feel this would be informative to many components of the Endocrine Society’s membership who either submit their work for publication or serve as reviewers for scientific journals. The overarching theme for this session will be that the avoidance of scientific misconduct improves the quality of your research, and optimizes the enduring value of your work to medicine, to society and to your colleagues.