Junior doctor is suspended for citing colleagues on falsified research without their knowledge

A junior doctor who cited her senior colleagues without their knowledge as coauthors in papers that were later retracted for faulty or fabricated data has been suspended for 12 months by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester.

Gemina Doolub was working in cardiology for Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust in 2013 when she submitted a research paper to ISRN Cardiology1 and a research abstract to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.2

In the research paper, submitted in or around February 2013, she cited Erica Dall’Armellina, a clinical research fellow at the John Radcliffe Hospital, as a coauthor, fabricating an email address for her. Neither Dall’Armellina nor Oxford University had approved the paper.

In admissions made to the tribunal before the hearing, Doolub admitted fabricating research data for the paper and allowing flawed, erroneous, and confidential data to be published.

About a month later she submitted the abstract, falsely citing Colin Forfar, a consultant cardiologist at the trust, as coauthor. Doolub admitted falsely stating that the study had been double blind, falsely naming Forfar as coauthor, and allowing the article to be published with flawed or erroneous data.

The retraction notice for the abstract mentions incorrect data but not dishonesty by the lead author or misattributed authorship. Instead it reports that the published results were withdrawn after coming back different when calculated with a newer version of Excel software.2

The deception was discovered later in 2013. In her evidence to the tribunal, said chairman William Coppola, Doolub accepted “that the series of events from late 2012 to March 2013 was a disastrous chapter” in her early career.

Informing Doolub of the tribunal’s decision, Coppola said, “You admitted that you had fabricated data and falsely cited distinguished doctors as coauthors in order to achieve publications that would enhance your reputation, your career, and potential job opportunities. In doing this, you risked reputational damage to Dr Dall’Armellina, Dr Forfar, and Oxford University, for your own gain.”

Even though the studies had posed little risk to patient health, being too small to change practice, “you nevertheless chose to place your interests before those of patients in general and the wider profession as a whole,” said Coppola.

Doolub, a native of Mauritius who qualified at Newcastle University in 2009, had shown insight and remorse, said Coppola, but had also continued to give false reasons for her actions as recently as last month, when she signed a witness statement which claimed that “I included Dr Dall’Armellina as coauthor of the study as I could not have completed the study without her assistance.” She later admitted that this was not true.

“The tribunal considered this to be a finely balanced case,” said Coppola, warning Doolub that her fate hovered between erasure and maximum suspension. Ultimately, he said, her frank testimony at the hearing and the supportive testimonials of more recent colleagues had told in her favour. Consultants with whom she was currently working, who knew of her misconduct, were willing to work with her again after any suspension, he added.

“The tribunal concluded that the mitigating factors set out above were just sufficient to indicate that the public interest could be met by a sanction of suspension,” he said. “In making this decision, the tribunal also took account of the public interest in keeping the services of a good doctor.”