找回密码
 注册

微信登录,快人一步

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

楼主: 蓝鱼o_0

如此事件实在令人震惊和失望

 火... [复制链接]
发表于 2012-5-21 00:10 | 显示全部楼层

Elaine Larson
Columbia University School of Nursing

曾担任过APIC的president,办事很认真。多年前到她的单位,她接待了我们。之后,与她一起参加过两次小组讨论会,也听过她的多次演讲。

我估计她弄错了,建议在适当的时候,你可以提醒她,你来自于中国。

评分

参与人数 1威望 +3 收起 理由
细菌耐药 + 3 赞一个!

查看全部评分

回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-5-21 00:41 | 显示全部楼层
蓝鱼老师:佩服您严谨的学术态度和强烈的责任心!希望论坛里多一些您这样的老师。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-5-21 06:48 | 显示全部楼层
蓝鱼o_0 发表于 2012-5-20 21:34
看到了第一反应是震惊,然后想弄个究竟。连发帖都犹豫了很久。不知道什么时候,变得不那么敢于直言,换做 ...

从一本书上看到一句话,二十岁不尖锐是身体有病,四十岁还尖锐是脑子有病,我悲哀的发现,现在二十岁的年轻人已经很少尖锐了,四十岁的尖锐更是凤毛麟角,这种中国特色的中庸之道,不知对科学的发展起到了多少阻碍的“作用”,所以,赞同并钦佩您的举动

评分

参与人数 1威望 +3 收起 理由
细菌耐药 + 3 赞一个!

查看全部评分

回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-21 12:32 | 显示全部楼层
icchina 发表于 2012-5-21 00:10
Elaine Larson
Columbia University School of Nursing

谢谢您的介绍。希望以后在SIFIC年会或者出国参会听到她的精彩讲演。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-5-21 13:00 | 显示全部楼层
蓝鱼o_0 发表于 2012-5-20 23:42
谢谢您的支持与鼓励!之前一直有疑虑,身为版主身份特殊,不能因为任何言行失误给SIFIC或者合作单位带来 ...

老师们的讨论距离我较遥远,基本没有发言权。但是,老师说“身为版主身份特殊,不能因为任何言行失误给SIFIC或者合作单位带来任何不良影响。”让我依靠论坛摸索工作的很感动!
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-5-22 09:31 | 显示全部楼层
翘首企盼蓝鱼报告新进展。
这对我们也是一个莫大的警示哦——一旦白纸黑字印出来,就永远放在那里啦,就会有“蓝鱼们”来发现的
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-5-22 09:46 | 显示全部楼层
深感震惊!相信相关负责人会认真反思此事!敬佩蓝鱼老师严谨的科学态度!强烈支持!
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-26 01:51 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 蓝鱼o_0 于 2012-5-26 01:52 编辑
icchina 发表于 2012-5-20 22:55
您做了一件非常了不起的工作,我支持您的行动。
作者好像是美国一家公司的人员:Menyhay Healthcare Sys ...

收到了AJIC编辑的回复了。分了三个LETTER,第一个是对方的解释,张贴出来。
Dear Dr. Larsen,

Suffice it to say, I was indeed shocked by your e-mail and the inference that Mr. Menyhay and I were guilty of duplicate publication of an original paper in AJIC in 2008, a paper we originally published in ICHE in 2006.

First of all, I was particularly surprised to learn of the second publication dealing with our study, published in AJIC in 2008, since I was totally unaware of its existence. Appended is an April 2012 copy of my CV -- copies of which were recently sent to ALTHA and ATS, long before I received your e-mail, for national symposia at which I spoke last week (and which you can obtain from them for corroboration, if you wish) -- and you will see that I do not even list the 2008 AJIC paper in my CV.

On receiving your email, I immediately contacted Mr Menyhay, who lives in California, and drilled down on the 2008 AJIC issue and learned that the findings of our original study published in ICHE in 2006 were the substance of a presentation Mr Menyhay was invited by Cardinal Health to give at the Eighth International Cardinal Health Symposium on HCABSIs, and like the other presentations at that symposium Mr Menyhay’s presentation was was edited by a professional writer from Cardinal and published in a a 2008 issue of AJIC. (see attached copies of Mr Menyhay's emails regarding the symposium and its publication in AJIC)  

Thus, this was clearly not an effort at duplicate publication of the same original research data. Rather, it was a presentation of a single simple study at an invited research symposium where the organizers were fully aware that the data had already been published a year earlier (see emails), a presentation in which the original data formed the basis for the interest in the study which Mr Menyhay presented in its entirety. (How could he have presented any other data than the findings of our study?). Many many researchers around the world republish their original published research data (often again and again) in the proceedings of research symposia or invited reviews, obviously packaging it a little differently each time, and this is never considered duplicate publication (rather, is considered desirable academically, "advancing medical communication").

Mr Menyhay, an extraordinarily dedicated critical care nurse who I consider to be highly ethical and honest to the point of pain, is not an experienced researcher, and this was his very first research study and our 2006 ICHE paper was his first original publication. I designed the study of his innovative technology and analyzed the data with him, and wrote most of the original ICHE paper because of his inexperience. However, Mr. Menyhay is aware that duplicate publication of an original research study is ethically unacceptable and violates copyright law but believed in 2008 that it was ethically acceptable to present the published data at an invited research symposium where the organizers were clearly fully aware that the data had already been published a year earlier (and never raised the issue of duplicate publication), and he believed that a discussion of our original study focusing on the findings and their potential implications would be acceptable in this unique format, if he modified the text of paper, which he cleaarly did. I would point out that the Mr Menyhay's paper in the special AJIC 8th Symposium issue could not have been more direct or honest: since it states at the outset that we had done an original research study, acknowledging that it was already published since the original ICHE paper is the first citation of the AJIC paper. (the original manuscript he submitted to Cardinal health for publication, also attached, was even more direct in this regard).

It would be a patent injustice to conclude that Mr. Menyhay’s AJIC publication represents duplicate publication of an original research study and for him to be censored or punished. In that same issue of AJIC, Dr Provonost has a published paper discussing the Keystone Study, originally published in the NEJM, which contains data from the original NEJM publication (almost certainly his nth invited publication rehashing the data and discussing that study, published long ago) but neither you nor I would dream of considering Dr Provonost’s article duplicate publication. Mr Menyhay is a rookie in academic medical publishing and was not nearly as skilled as Dr Provonost in repackaging the data or text he published in the AJIC issue, however, he made an honest (albeit naive) effort to rewrite the paper, shortening it, using a new critical Figure 1 and fewer but several new references. (I'm frankly shocked that the professional medical writer who extensively edited the Introduction of his submitted manuscript did not provide more assistance which would have eliminated any appeaarance of duplicate publication). I feel very strongly that in the spirit of fairness, Mr. Menyhay’s actions are no different than those of Dr Provonost; Dr Menyhay was only far less skilled at presenting previously published data in a sufficiently different format that it would not raise the spectre of duplicate publication (and he received no assistance on this matter from the professional medical writer editing his manuscript)..

Finally, given that Mr Menyhay acknowledged at the very outset in the AJIC paper that this study had already been published and provided the citation, I would have expected your reviewers and editors to have raised the question of duplicate publication at the time the manuscript was being processed for publication, which they obviously didn't (and thus they presumably did not consider it to represent duplicate publication at the time).

I appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues with you by telephone yesterday.

Thank you.

Dennis G Maki, MD
Ovid O. Meyer Professor of Medicine
Division of Infectious Diseases
Attending Physician, Center for Trauma and Life Support   

(O) 608-263-1545
(24/7 Cell) 608-279-7330
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-26 01:52 | 显示全部楼层
回复邮件2:

Thank you for this careful explanation.  On our end, we will now review our processes to see how and if we were remiss and missed something.  If so, we will certainly put into place policies and procedures to assure that this does not happen again.  We are still fact finding, and this communication is helpful.
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-26 01:53 | 显示全部楼层
事情的结局出来了,编辑的回复:
Dear Dr. Chen:
Thank you for calling our attention to a potential dual publication in AJIC and ICHE.  We have examined the issue very carefully, have discussed with the publisher this situation.  The AJIC publication was on-line only and was solicited for a supplement on a specific topic.  The author was asked by the funder of the supplement to discuss his findings.   He cited the original publication in the article (reference #1).  Note that Figure 2 is slightly different in the second than in the first paper.  The appropriate release forms were submitted.  While this perhaps  represents lack of experience on the part of the author, there did not seem to be any intentional breach of publication ethics.  Hence, we consider the matter closed.  In addition, in the future we are increasing our scrutiny of any manuscript that is accepted for publication in AJIC.
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-5-26 01:59 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 蓝鱼o_0 于 2012-5-26 02:12 编辑

作者的解释来自于大老板,他说,这个研究者属于没有经验,但是非常相信他是没有存心为之。
为什么会有OVERLAP的结果,只是因为有了一定的引用。
同时他还举了个以前发生在NJEM的例子。佐证这个事情有案例,但是并非有心之过。

编辑们进行了CHECK,也发现了细微的差别。最后认可了这个解释。
那么这件事到此就告一段落。但是还有一些值得反思:

据我所知,一篇文章的出台,起码要经过审核多次,包括了通讯作者和第一作者。那么在如此短的时间之内,发生如此雷同的数据,甚至图像都非常雷同,这点让人非常费解。但因为编辑团队也认同了,那么我认为事情就到此为止了。得饶人处且饶人。

我们只想知道真相,也给所有读者一个交代。

评分

参与人数 1威望 +1 收起 理由
樵夫 + 1 赞一个!

查看全部评分

回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-6-4 15:57 | 显示全部楼层
因前些天一直在忙于年会相关事情,今天才看到您这个贴子,实在对不起了,敬请原谅。您做了一件非常了不起的事,作为一名学者就需要这种执着精神,维护学术的尊严是每一个正直人都应该做的事。您的行动让人敬佩。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-6-4 15:58 | 显示全部楼层
书读无厌,念我任重道远;笔耕不倦,管它细水流长
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-6-27 11:23 | 显示全部楼层

支持楼主的学术打假行为!
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-9-28 22:11 | 显示全部楼层
非常好的学习例子,版主做了一件很了不起的事情,值得大家学习之。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册 |

本版积分规则

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表