It was very intriguing to read the BMJ medical journalist’s account
of this unsavory episode. The article under the scanner here was published
in 1992. That the editors have publicly disclosed their misgivings about
the work that appeared in print 13 years ago is evidence enough of the
extreme caution used by the BMJ in dealing with this issue. It is clear
from the facts presented that this is not a knee jerk reaction. A lot of
background work has been done. The evidence presented by the BMJ is
compelling. And one cannot dismiss this episode as just another example of
bias of the developed world against the third world. Publication bias
towards third world authors may not be a reality as many editors would
like us to believe but episodes like these only serve to create it if it
is nonexistent presently. This is not to absolve the developed world of
any ills in the research scenario. The John Darsee case (1), which
provided the spark for the drafting of Vancouver criteria and the
formation of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),
came to light in the West after all. Irrespective of where it occurs,
falsified research is damaging with the most serious implications for
hapless patients whose management strategies may be based on such
research.
That the BMJ has just published this expansive case and “expressed
concern” rather than presenting the author as the clear culprit also
highlights the difficulty in getting at the truth. The BMJ’s action is
almost equivalent to going to a peoples’ court. It is also clear that the
efforts of the editors to nail the truth have been hampered by lack of
energy from the country of origin of the paper.
The status of research in India sways from the state of the art to
the run of the mill and worse. Lack of controls at various stages is all
too visible and this I believe is the breeding ground for researchers with
dubious intentions, if not credentials, getting enough sky to fly. The
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) sponsors a lot of research
conducted in the country but there are so many areas that do not come
under their purview as is clear from Dr. Ganguly’s response to Dr. Singh’s
case. Research in institutions and that done by independent researchers is
largely uncontrolled. The Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines on
research practices (as per ICMR) are too general to pursue serious action
against wrongdoers.(2)
Last year, the Journal of Association of Physicians of India (JAPI)
carried an editorial along with a note of retraction of an article which
was plagiarized from SLEEP by the Director of a reputed institute in
India.(3) Falsified research brings with it disrepute to the individual,
institutions and countries.
Where does the fault lie? Is it with the individual or the institutions?
Individual integrity is no doubt the first one to be breached in such
situations and that has no geographical predilection. The way institutions
deal with evidence/suspicion of research malpractice is the determining
factor at most times. Traditionally the approach of most institutions in
India has been to brush such issues under the carpet. Among one of the
differences between the Western world and the developing world has been
its obsession with systems and protocols, things that are so easily
flouted in the developing world.
Subversion of systems by individuals is so commonplace in various spheres
of life in India that it is no surprise that research too, is a casualty.
In a scenario where India is trying desperately to project itself as a
global player in the world, episodes like these only serve to push its
interests back.
Most institutions, although they do have supervisory bodies looking over
dissertations, have no such regulations for individual researchers. Power
games and an establishment mired in a hierarchical structure further
ensures that suspicions on falsified research do not get a fair hearing on
most occasions. Whistleblowers are at great risk of acts of retribution.
In such a scenario especially with editors and reviewers of research
papers not too keen on taking the initiative (like the BMJ)to investigate
suspicious authors, instances like the one disclosed by the BMJ are not a
rarity. I fully endorse Dr. Soman’s views about “Ours is not a forthright
and frank culture”.(4)
If India has to retain and even enhance its credibility in research,
skeletons have to be brought out of cupboards. A countrywide debate on
research ethics is required and systems need to be developed that oversee
research practices, both at the institutional as well as the national
level.
References:
1. Smith J. Gift authorship: A poisoned chalice. BMJ 1994; 309:1456-
1457.
2. The Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and
Ethics) Regulations,
Rapid Response:
Skeletons in the cupboard
Dear Editor,
It was very intriguing to read the BMJ medical journalist’s account
of this unsavory episode. The article under the scanner here was published
in 1992. That the editors have publicly disclosed their misgivings about
the work that appeared in print 13 years ago is evidence enough of the
extreme caution used by the BMJ in dealing with this issue. It is clear
from the facts presented that this is not a knee jerk reaction. A lot of
background work has been done. The evidence presented by the BMJ is
compelling. And one cannot dismiss this episode as just another example of
bias of the developed world against the third world. Publication bias
towards third world authors may not be a reality as many editors would
like us to believe but episodes like these only serve to create it if it
is nonexistent presently. This is not to absolve the developed world of
any ills in the research scenario. The John Darsee case (1), which
provided the spark for the drafting of Vancouver criteria and the
formation of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),
came to light in the West after all. Irrespective of where it occurs,
falsified research is damaging with the most serious implications for
hapless patients whose management strategies may be based on such
research.
That the BMJ has just published this expansive case and “expressed
concern” rather than presenting the author as the clear culprit also
highlights the difficulty in getting at the truth. The BMJ’s action is
almost equivalent to going to a peoples’ court. It is also clear that the
efforts of the editors to nail the truth have been hampered by lack of
energy from the country of origin of the paper.
The status of research in India sways from the state of the art to
the run of the mill and worse. Lack of controls at various stages is all
too visible and this I believe is the breeding ground for researchers with
dubious intentions, if not credentials, getting enough sky to fly. The
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) sponsors a lot of research
conducted in the country but there are so many areas that do not come
under their purview as is clear from Dr. Ganguly’s response to Dr. Singh’s
case. Research in institutions and that done by independent researchers is
largely uncontrolled. The Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines on
research practices (as per ICMR) are too general to pursue serious action
against wrongdoers.(2)
Last year, the Journal of Association of Physicians of India (JAPI)
carried an editorial along with a note of retraction of an article which
was plagiarized from SLEEP by the Director of a reputed institute in
India.(3) Falsified research brings with it disrepute to the individual,
institutions and countries.
Where does the fault lie? Is it with the individual or the institutions?
Individual integrity is no doubt the first one to be breached in such
situations and that has no geographical predilection. The way institutions
deal with evidence/suspicion of research malpractice is the determining
factor at most times. Traditionally the approach of most institutions in
India has been to brush such issues under the carpet. Among one of the
differences between the Western world and the developing world has been
its obsession with systems and protocols, things that are so easily
flouted in the developing world.
Subversion of systems by individuals is so commonplace in various spheres
of life in India that it is no surprise that research too, is a casualty.
In a scenario where India is trying desperately to project itself as a
global player in the world, episodes like these only serve to push its
interests back.
Most institutions, although they do have supervisory bodies looking over
dissertations, have no such regulations for individual researchers. Power
games and an establishment mired in a hierarchical structure further
ensures that suspicions on falsified research do not get a fair hearing on
most occasions. Whistleblowers are at great risk of acts of retribution.
In such a scenario especially with editors and reviewers of research
papers not too keen on taking the initiative (like the BMJ)to investigate
suspicious authors, instances like the one disclosed by the BMJ are not a
rarity. I fully endorse Dr. Soman’s views about “Ours is not a forthright
and frank culture”.(4)
If India has to retain and even enhance its credibility in research,
skeletons have to be brought out of cupboards. A countrywide debate on
research ethics is required and systems need to be developed that oversee
research practices, both at the institutional as well as the national
level.
References:
1. Smith J. Gift authorship: A poisoned chalice. BMJ 1994; 309:1456-
1457.
2. The Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and
Ethics) Regulations,
2002. Notification; No. MCI- 211 (2) 2001- Regn Dt 11th March 2002.
3. Sapatnekar SM. Plagiarism. JAPI 2004; 52:527-530.
4. White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties in getting at the
truth. BMJ 2005;
331:281-288.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests