Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: External checks must be imposed to protect the public

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230-a

BMJ 2004;328:230 (24 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230-a

Letter

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud

External checks must be imposed to protect the public

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—With reference to Ferriman's article on editors'priorities,¹ an inspectorate with authority to undertake randomchecks on research is needed because there is no adequate meansto detect and deter research fraud. Academic institutions andhospitals have repeatedly failed to deal with misconduct.^2
3Some have even turned a blind eye to murder of patients by doctors.⁴Institutions can no longer be trusted to deal internally withresearch misconduct.

Local research ethics committees lack the resources and inclinationto deal with research fraud. Internet publication of raw datamay help, but there are documented cases of falsified raw data.⁵Furthermore, if you realise from inspecting the data on theinternet that the paper was dishonest, what is your remedy?In my experience, the institution will refuse to act againstthe researchers, and editors will avoid retraction.

Inspection by an external agency could affect the running ofresearch, but we . . . [Full text of this article]

Peter Wilmshurst, consultant cardiologist

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY3 8XQ peter.wilmshurst@rsh.nhs.uk