Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
In January 2006, one of the major cases of scientific fraud in recent years broke in the media. It was discovered that the Norwegian researcher John Sudbø had falsified the complete set of data on which an article published in the Lancet in 2005 had been based.1 The article had 14 authors, and Professor Jan Helge Solbakk, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Oslo, was quoted in Norwegian media as saying that “… also the 13 other co-authors in the research scandal have muck on their hands…” and: “That none of the 13 has discovered what took place shows clearly that they have not been close to fulfilling the criteria for being co-authors.”2
One of the co-authors complained to the Norwegian Medical Association’s (NMA’s) Council for Professional Ethics about these comments, …
Competing interests: Søren Holm holds a part-time chair at the University of Oslo and is a colleague of Jan Helge Solbakk.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Mortality among Swedish chimney sweeps (1952–2006): an extended cohort study
- Fluorene exposure among PAH-exposed workers is associated with epigenetic markers related to lung cancer
- Incidence of myocardial infarction in Swedish chimney sweeps 1991–2005: a prospective cohort study
- Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
- Case series and exposure series: the role of studies without controls in providing information about the etiology of injury or disease
- Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk?
- Scientists call for whistleblowers' charter
- Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?
- Mortality among Swedish chimney sweeps 1952–2006
- Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right?