Netherlands Heart Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 25–29 | Cite as

Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction

Implications for the peer-review process
  • M. A. G. van der Heyden
  • T. van de Derks Ven
  • T. Opthof
special article

Abstract

Scientific misconduct and fraud occur in science. The (anonymous) peer review process serves as goalkeeper of scientific quality rather than scientific integrity. In this brief paper we describe some limitations of the peer-review process. We describe the catastrophic facts of the ‘Woo-Suk Hwang fraud case’ and raise some ethical concerns about the issue. Finally, we pay attention to plagiarism, autoplagiarism and double publications. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:25-9.)

double publications fraud scientific misconduct peer review; plagiarism stem cell research 

References

  1. Farthing MJG. Research misconduct: diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Br J Surgery 2000;87:1605-9.Google Scholar
  2. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med 2005;2:696-701.Google Scholar
  3. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294:218-28.Google Scholar
  4. Kronick DA. Peer review in the 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263:1321-2.Google Scholar
  5. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1323-9.Google Scholar
  6. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 1991;178:637-42.Google Scholar
  7. Scharschmidt BF, DeAmicis A, Bacchetti P, Held MJ. Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewer's recommendations on 1,000 submissions to The Journal of Clinical Investigation. J Clin Invest 1994;93:1877-80.Google Scholar
  8. Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:339-46.Google Scholar
  9. Wilson JD. Peer review and publication. J Clin Invest 1978;61:1697-701.Google Scholar
  10. Opthof T, Furstner F, Van Geer M, Coronel R. Regrets or no regrets ? No regrets ! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovasc Res 2000;45:255-8.Google Scholar
  11. Coronel R, Opthof T. The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovasc Res 1999;43:261-4.Google Scholar
  12. Moed HF. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  13. Van Raan AFJ. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 2006;67:491-502.Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy D. Editorial retraction. Science 2006;311:335.Google Scholar
  15. Holden C. Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. Science 2005;310:1402-3.Google Scholar
  16. Chong S, Normile D. Stem cells. How young Korean researchers helped unearth a scandal. Science 2006;311:22-5.Google Scholar
  17. Vogel G. Stem cells. Landmark paper has an image problem. Science 2005;310:1595.Google Scholar
  18. Normile D, Vogel G. Stem cells. Korean university will investigate cloning paper. Science 2005;310:1748-9.Google Scholar
  19. Lee BC, Kim MK, Jang G, Oh HJ, Yuda F, Kim HJ, et al. Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature 2005;436:641.Google Scholar
  20. SNU Investigation Committee, C.C.M.-h., Summary of the Final Report on Hwang's Research Allegation. 2006, Seoul National University: Seoul.Google Scholar
  21. Lee JB, Park C. Molecular genetics: verification that Snuppy is a clone. Nature 2006;440:E2-3.Google Scholar
  22. Parker HG, Kruglyak L, Ostrander EA. Molecular genetics: DNA analysis of a putative dog clone. Nature 2006;440:E1-2.Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy D. Responding to fraud. Science 2006;314:1353.Google Scholar
  24. Hearse DJ. Anonimity of reviewers. Editorial comment. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1133.Google Scholar
  25. Vandenbroucke JP. Can the quality of peer review be measured ? J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:821-2.Google Scholar
  26. Gallagher R. End the censorship of science. The Scientist 2007;21:13.Google Scholar
  27. Wohn Y. Research misconduct. Seoul National University dismisses Hwang. Science 2006;311:1695.Google Scholar
  28. Jeong YW, Park SW, Hossein MS, Kim S, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Antiapoptotic and embryotrophic effects of α-tocopherol and L-ascorbic acid on porcine embryos derived from in vitro fertilization and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Theriogenology 2006;66:2104-12.Google Scholar
  29. Hossein MS, Hashem MA, Jeong YW, Lee MS, Kim S, Kim JH, et al. Temporal effects of alpha-tocopherol and l-ascorbic acid on in vitro fertilized porcine embryo development. Anim Reprod Sci 2007;100:107-17.Google Scholar
  30. Lee E, Lee SH, Kim S, Jeong YW, Kim JH, Koo OJ, et al. Analysis of nuclear reprogramming in cloned miniature pig embryos by expression of Oct-4 and Oct-4 related genes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;348:1419-28.Google Scholar
  31. Lee GS, Kim HS, Hwang WS, Kyun SH. Characterization of porcine growth differentiation factor-9 and its expression in oocyte maturation. Mol Reprod Dev 2008;75:707-14.Google Scholar
  32. Wohn DY. Hwang returns to the lab. Science NOW Daily news. August 23, 2006; sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi
  33. Jeong YW, Hossein MS, Bhandari DP, Kim YW, Kim JH, Park SW, et al. Effects of insulin-transferring-selenium in defined and porcine follicular fluid supplemented IVM media on porcine IVF and SCNT embryo production. Anim Reprod Sci 2007 doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.03.021.Google Scholar
  34. Abbott A. Academic accused of living on borrowed lines. Nature 2007;448:632-633. See also correction: Nature 2007;448:739.Google Scholar
  35. Martin BR. Keeping plagiarism at bay. A salutary tale. Research policy 2007;36:905-11.Google Scholar
  36. Wang G, Wang EH. [The effect of glycine on survival after hemorrhagic shock in the rats]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2004;42:296-301. [published March 2004; article in Chinese]Google Scholar
  37. Wang G, Wang EH. Effects of glycine and methylprednisolone on hemorrhagic shock in rats. Chin Med J 2004;117:1334-41. [published September 2004; article in English]Google Scholar
  38. Ma H, Zhang HF, Yu L, Zhang QJ, Li J, Huo JH, et al. Vasculo-protective effect of insulin in the ischemic/reperfused canine heart: role of Akt-stimulated NO production. Cardiovasc Res 2006;69:57-65. [published January 2006; article in English]Google Scholar
  39. Ma H, Huo JH, Zhang HX, Bian JF, Wang YM, Xiong LZ, et al. [Effects of insulin on cardiac function and coronary circulation in acute myocardial ischemia and reperfusion experiment with dogs]. Zhuonhua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2006;86:3128-32. [published November 2006; article in Chinese]Google Scholar
  40. Yang W, Ge JB, Liu HL, An Y, Liu XB, Tian Y, et al. [Arsenic trioxyde eluting stents to prevent restenosis of injured iliac arteries in rabbits]. Zhuonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi 2006;34:14-8. [published January 2006; article in Chinese]Google Scholar
  41. Yang W, Ge J, Liu H, Zhao K, Liu X, Qu X, et al. Arsenic trioxide eluting stent reduces neointima formation in a rabbit iliac artery injury model. Cardiovasc Res 2006;72:483-93. [published December 2006; article in English]Google Scholar
  42. Xu HT, Wang L, Lin D, Liu Y, Liu N, Wang EH. [Expression of axin and beta-catenin in non-small cell lung cancer]. Zhuonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2005;34:519-23. [article in Chinese]Google Scholar
  43. Xu HT, Wang L, Lin D, Lin Y, Liu N, Yuan XM, et al. Abnormal beta-catenin and reduced axin expression are associated with poor differentiation and progression in non-small cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:534-41. [article in English]Google Scholar
  44. Xie CY, Wang L, Liu Y, Liu N, Qiu XS, Wang EH. [Expression of p120(ctn) and its significance in non-small cell lung cancer]. Zhuonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2005;34:206-10. [article in Chinese]Google Scholar
  45. Wang EH, Liu Y, Xu HT, Dai SD, Liu N, Xie CY, et al. Abnormal expression and clinicopathologic significance of p120-catenin in lung cancer. Histol Histopathol 2006;21:841-7. [article in English]Google Scholar
  46. Anonymous. Asia on the rise. Nature 2007;447:885.Google Scholar
  47. McGee G. Me first! The Scientist 2007;21:28.Google Scholar
  48. Butler D. Copycat trap. Nature 2007;448:633.Google Scholar
  49. Reyes B. Honesty and good faith: two cornerstones in the ethics ofbiomedicalpublications. Rev Med Chil 2007;135:415-8. [article in Spanish].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. G. van der Heyden
    • 1
  • T. van de Derks Ven
  • T. Opthof
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations