HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): L. Henry Edmunds, Jr Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Edmunds, L. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Edmunds, L. H., Jr Related Collections Professional affairs

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:717-719
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Editorials

Journal Ethics

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Edmunds, Editor, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 3440 Market St, Suite 306, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Email: hank.edmunds@uphs.upenn.edu).

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

	Introduction

 
The medical profession depends upon trust. No rational patient, no matter how desperate, empowers anyone to use a knife without trust. The trust is earned by knowledge, training, qualifications, experience, judgment, dedication, loyalty, and a host of attributes that assure the patient that their surgeon is capable and acting solely in their best interests. This trust is the foundation of medicine; without it we cannot practice. Trust also extends to communications between doctors regarding the accuracy, objectivity, and originality of discoveries, experiences, and analyses. Recently, journal editors, whose primary role is to facilitate communication between doctors, have become concerned about behavior that threatens to erode the trust between our patients and ourselves.

In 1999 editors of six major journals in cardiac and general thoracic surgery published a statement defining "redundant" (duplicate) publication [1]. More recently, the public, particularly in the United States, has become aware and alarmed about conflicts of interest between doctors and suppliers of drugs and medical products [2]. In addition, there have been a few instances of scientific misconduct involving fraudulent laboratory records and fictional clinical experience. At a recent meeting of the Council of Science Editors (May 18–22, 2007), editors and managing editors informally discussed the increasing number of ethical breaches across all scientific journals. Scientific journals do not employ detectives; we police ourselves. But what exactly are journal ethical standards?

	Scientific Misconduct

 
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services defines scientific misconduct as "fabrication," "falsification," and "plagiarism" and excludes "honest error" and "differences of opinion" (http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml). Scientific misconduct is the most serious ethical breach and one that may harm patients, tarnish the reputation of the perpetrator’s institution, justify dismissal from the institution, require withdrawal of all relevant published reports, and end research . . . [Full Text of this Article]