From this week’s BMJ:
The saga began in the late 1980s when Dr Chalmers was preparing a systematic review of epidural anaesthesia. He noticed that much of the text and data in a 1974 paper co-authored by Professor Kurjak were identical to those in a paper from a different group of authors published three years previously.
He reported his observations to the editor concerned and to Professor Kurjak’s university [Zagreb University]. Both requested that the matter be handled discreetly.
In 2006 Dr Chalmers discovered that Professor Kurjak continued plagiarising. A report in 2002 showed that he had taken material from a Norwegian doctoral thesis and published it under his own name as a chapter in a book on fetal neurology.
Likewise, Dr. Ranjit Chandra continued his misdeeds long after someone complained to his employer, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Memorial University and its President, Axel Meisen, deserve some sort of award for now claiming Memorial did nothing wrong when it allowed Chandra to continue.
More here. An editorial by me about how well universities handle this sort of thing.
Seth,
I’m curious–your article on scientific fraud seems to be labeled by the journal as a “Debate.” Were there accompanying articles or discussions by others?
Not exactly. It was the first example of a new section (“Debate”) and there were no other articles in that section, no replies to what I had written. However, in that issue an editorial from the editor said this:
“Public Health Nutrition will be the forum for communication and debate about the nature of what needs to be done and the best way to do it — which means the journal must have a role that is wider than simply receiving and accepting or rejecting original contributions. The journal must engage actively in discussion about the big issues that affect the nutrition-related well-being of society. The journal must be an example of best practice in terms of defining, adopting and following standards of best practice.”