In an interesting letter to the BMJ33 Hillman lists practices some of which currently do not lie under the umbrella of fraud and misconduct in research, which he defines as "parafraud". He lists the following:
• authors not publishing results that do not support hypotheses;
• authors not doing crucial control experiments;
• authors claiming authorship of papers towards which they have not made any contribution;
• authors leaving out some results of experiments arbitrarily;
• referees recommending rejection of papers for publication without specifying reasons and relevant refrences, or rejecting work that may yield results throwing into doubt the value of their own work;
• referees recommending that grants not be given to fund research by competitors;
• authors misquoting other authors deliberately;
• referees not reading manuscripts or submissions for grants with sufficient attention to assess them seriously;
• authors not answering questions at meetings or in correspondence;
• authors ignoring findings inimical to, or preceding, their own;
• authors being unwilling to discuss their own published research.
He also concludes that the extent and impact of these practices in the body of research are unknown but may be extensive.
Was this article helpful?