PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D M Parrish

Publications and source records attributed to D M Parrish.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.

Journal editors are among those who must face the issue of when and how to correct the scientific literature when an allegation or finding of scientific misconduct occurs. The author describes an instructive incident of tainted data and a subsequent allegation of misconduct that involved a federally-sponsored study where some data had been fabricated. The journals that had published or were considering articles from that study were not told about the problem for almost four years after the initial allegations of misconduct. The author then provides information to throw light on such questions as: Who has the responsibility to ensure that a manuscript that may contain falsified or fabricated data is not published? Who has the responsibility to correct the literature when falsified or fabricated data have been published, and at what point should that correction be made? For example, should it be when the problem of data is suspected or when it is proven? And if proven, proven by whom? How is the larger scientific community to be notified about the problem? Where and when should the correction or retraction appear, and what should it tell readers about the basis for the retraction or correction? She also presents data from 25 cases to show the various lengths of time involved in correcting the literature after allegations of research misconduct had been made. The author concludes that the record shows how disconnected journal editors have been from the scientific misconduct process and that expectations differ regarding the obligations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies about informing a journal when an allegation of scientific misconduct is made about a publication in its pages. The 25 cases show that substantial delays in notifying the journal and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are endemic, and that all parties have far to go in appreciating their roles in maintaining the integrity of the biomedical literature.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Image communications. What is needed and why.

Better communications are essential in the new medical environment. Methods to make more efficient the throughput in an existing department, foster confidence of patients, and improve the communications and efficiency of referring physicians are needed. The most difficult and thus the driving component of the new communications environment is image transmission. Concepts of picture archiving and communications systems, or PACS, arising from digital technology make possible unique and ubiquitous solutions to image communications. Better quality control and improved interpretation throughout the system, including the offices of referring physicians, will be possible. Radiologists are in a position to mold this new medical industry.

Computer Communication Networks↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process.

The overturning and withdrawal of several of the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI's) findings of scientific misconduct have called its role into question. The contested findings of scientific misconduct that have been tried before the hearing body have been based on lengthy and expensive ORI investigations. How could ORI have failed to prove its findings of scientific misconduct after the commitment of substantial resources that far exceed those devoted during institutional investigations? One reason may be that the current hearing process makes it difficult or impossible for ORI, institutions, or individuals to prove scientific misconduct. The hearing process has been criticized by discouraged whistleblowers who believe that their allegations of scientific misconduct should have been upheld, and by the accused for the expensive and protracted nature of the proceedings. The following article examines problems in the scientific misconduct hearing process and suggests that the process could be improved by letting administrative law judges, patent attorneys, and a scientific majority decide these cases.

Biomedical Research↗