Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author

doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7511.288

BMJ 2005;331:288-291 (30 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7511.288

Education and debate

Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author

Richard Smith, chief executive¹

¹ UnitedHealth Europe, London SW1P 1SB

Correspondence to: richardswsmith@yahoo.co.uk

This year, the journal Nutrition retracted a study by R K Chandra,and questions have been raised about the integrity of the restof his work. Who has the responsibility for investigating previouswork and if necessary punishing the researcher and correctingthe scientific record?

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

Introduction

In February of this year, Michael Meguid, the editor of Nutrition,retracted a paper by the Canadian researcher R K Chandra, thatit had published in 2001.^1
2 The paper claimed to be a randomiseddouble blind placebo controlled trial showing that physiologicalamounts of vitamins and trace elements would improve cognitivefunction in elderly people.¹ Meguid gave eight reasons for retractingthe paper and said that Chandra had either ignored the reasonsor failed to give an adequate response.²

Chandra's paper was submitted originally in 2000 to the BMJ,which had severe doubts about the paper: one reviewer said thatthe paper "had all the hallmarks of having been entirely invented."³The BMJ asked Chandra's employers—the Memorial Universityof Newfoundland—to investigate its anxieties about thestudy. The university held an inquiry but found no serious problem.The BMJ was unconvinced by this response and raised furtherquestions about . . . [Full text of this article]

Investigating previous studies is important

Patterns of misconduct

Who should investigate?

Should we mark suspicious studies?

Conclusions

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

The Secret Life of Dr Chandra: Terry Hamblin
BMJ 2006 332: 369. [Extract] [Full Text]

Who will investigate suspected research misconduct?
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Full Text]

The GMC: out of its depth?: Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct: Jane Smith and Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 331: 245-246. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth: Caroline White
BMJ 2005 331: 281-288. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Three journals raise doubts on validity of Canadian studies: Caroline White
BMJ 2004 328: 67. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well.. JRSM 99: 232-237 [Full text]
Sox, H. C., Rennie, D. (2006). Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case. ANN INTERN MED 144: 609-613 [Abstract] [Full text]
Hamblin, T. (2006). The Secret Life of Dr Chandra. BMJ 332: 369-369 [Full text]
Smith, J., Godlee, F. (2005). Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. BMJ 331: 245-246 [Full text]
White, C. (2005). Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 331: 281-288 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Climate of more publications: Kasim Behranwala
bmj.com, 29 Jul 2005 [Full text]
Including correspondence in our systematic reviews: David A Scott
bmj.com, 2 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Research fraud & conflicts of interest joined at the hip: Lynn Howard Ehrle
bmj.com, 10 Aug 2005 [Full text]
A case for greater international representation on the editorial boards?: sanju george
bmj.com, 7 Aug 2005 [Full text]