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

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Curtis, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Curtis, S. E.

Letter to the Editor

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign August 26, 2006

The editorial and letter in the June 2006 Journal of Animal Science regarding alleged erroneous reporting or scientific misconduct associated with 2 papers published in the journal (81:2409–2418, 2003; 82:3482–3485, 2004) prompt me to share my concerns. In my opinion, the 2 pieces by the leadership of the journal and the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) have not successfully put the controversies to rest concerning documentation of certain aspects of the materials and methods and also concerning definitions of certain scientific terms as published in those papers.

In the editorial and letter, a dichotomy of purviews of alleged scientific misconduct (responsibility of the authors’ institutions) as against arguments over scientific method (that of the journal’s publisher) is set out. My view generally accords with that division of oversight, but the journal should bear ultimate responsibility for what it publishes. If erroneous reporting or scientific misconduct has affected the clarity or veracity of something published in our journal, then we are obliged to see to it that the record is set straight.

If the leaders of the journal and ASAS thought it appropriate to invite and encourage those papers’ authors to offer corrigenda, then it seems to me they must have concluded that those papers suffer from lack of clarity or veracity. Whether the problem is scientific misconduct or simply erroneous reporting and whether the problem is large or small is immaterial so far as the journal is concerned. Mistakes happen. Erroneous reporting happens. Whenever it does, it is problematic but not necessarily sinful. Innocent errors rise to the level of scientific misconduct only if and when the authors refuse to admit and correct them. Whether wrought by intention or by mistake, large or small, when questions of clarity or veracity in a scientific paper occur, I believe that the publication’s editorial board is obliged to assertively and assiduously set the record straight.

If the authors and their institutions in these cases have not satisfied the leadership of the journal and ASAS with their investigations of and responses to the allegations, I believe that the journal’s managers should switch from inviting and encouraging to requesting and insisting upon effective responses. Moreover, absent appropriate responses after a reasonable period, the journal’s managers should open their own inquiries and then, if indeed discrepancies are confirmed, correct the scientific record. Otherwise, the integrity of the Journal of Animal Science and ASAS will, in my opinion, be blemished.

Until all interested stakeholders can have open access to complete, definitive information on these matters, these cases will continue to be surrounded by controversy.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. P. Reynolds Public discourse concerning swine genetics papers J Anim Sci, May 1, 2008; 86(5): 1033 - 1034. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Curtis, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Curtis, S. E.