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 Males, J. R. Articles by Galyean, M. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Males, J. R. Articles by Galyean, M. L.

Letter to the Editor

Two manuscripts that were submitted to, reviewed, and published in the Journal of Animal Science as a result of work by the National Pork Producers Council Terminal Line and Maternal Sow Line Genetic Evaluation Programs were questioned concerning the validity of the information and issues of ethical misconduct by the authors. The perceived lack of a response by the Journal and the officers of the American Society of Animal Science has also been questioned. Both the Journal leadership and ASAS officers took the questions raised very seriously, and in this letter, we will explain the procedures that were used to evaluate this complaint.

The proper mechanism for the review of scientific misconduct is through an investigative body of the lead author’s institution (employer). The Journal review process, on the other hand, is designed to evaluate scientific merit, experimental design, interpretation of data, and conclusions reached from the results. For these 2 manuscripts, 2 institutions were involved. Both universities used their standard internal mechanisms to investigate the allegations of scientific misconduct. The primary questions raised about these 2 papers related to whether the genetic populations and sampling procedures had been adequately described. Questions about statistical methodology and interpretation of the data also were raised, but these questions seemed to be issues of interpretation and differences in judgment that were not related to scientific misconduct. Thorough, independent investigations were conducted by the 2 institutions.

With respect to the findings of these investigations, both institutions determined that there was no indication of scientific misconduct by the authors. The investigation by 1 of the 2 universities concluded that all allegations raised about the paper originating from their institution represented differences in how data should be interpreted or about the meaning of data. The investigation by the other university concluded that there was a lack of clarity in both papers in descriptions of 2 of the lines tested and the number of sires tested within 1 line, but there was no evidence that this lack of clarity invalidated the conclusions drawn by the authors. The authors have been encouraged by current President Buchanan and Editor-in-Chief Reynolds to submit corrigenda (i.e., corrections or clarifications) for these 2 papers.

At the same time that these investigations were ongoing, the ASAS Executive Committee requested that an independent evaluation of the review procedures for the 2 manuscripts be carried out. As the President and Editor-in-Chief at the time, we asked a former Editor-in-Chief and a respected expert in animal genetics to critique the editorial review process for these 2 manuscripts. The reviewers were given the original manuscripts, the original reviewers’ comments, suggestions from the Division Editor to the authors, and, of course, the printed manuscripts. This second review of the manuscripts identified the same concerns that had been noted in the original reviews and that were addressed by the authors before the manuscripts were accepted for publication. In addition, no known relationship, and therefore no conflict of interest, was found between any of the reviewers and the authors.

Based on the information obtained through this internal review of the Journal process and the 2 external reviews that were done by the universities involved, the ASAS Executive Committee concluded that the process used for the initial review and acceptance of these manuscripts was proper, and that there was no scientific misconduct and no reason to question the ethics of those involved.

We would be remiss, however, if we did not address additional details of how this situation was handled. When the original questions about 1 of the 2 manuscripts were raised, an offer was made to the member lodging the complaint to submit a Letter to the Editor expressing the member’s concerns. After a letter was submitted, but before the authors had prepared a rebuttal, the complainant decided to withdraw the Letter to the Editor. Nonetheless, in an effort to facilitate communication about the issue, the Editor-in-Chief obtained the authors’ response and shared it with the member. Unfortunately, the member lodging the complaint was not satisfied with the authors’ response, and the authors did not consider the member’s concerns to be worthy of further investigation on their part. Subsequently, the complainant contacted the 2 universities where the lead authors were employed and provided written allegations of misconduct, resulting in the investigations referred to previously. In addition, a campaign of e-mails, phone calls, and insinuation, aimed at members of the ASAS Executive Committee by the complainant and others associated with the complaint, ensued.

During this time, the ASAS Executive Committee believed that this matter should be kept confidential. Our operating procedure in this matter, through 4 Presidents and 2 Editors-in-Chief, has been that all parties are innocent until proven guilty. We considered it extremely important to let the various reviews and investigations take their course before we responded publicly. We received the final report from 1 of the 2 university investigations in late January 2006; hence, we consider this to be the appropriate time to provide the ASAS membership with a description of how this matter was handled.

President David Buchanan has formed an ad hoc committee to use this situation as a way to look at what was done and how the Society might be better positioned to manage similar situations in the future. We want to emphasize, however, that it is important that the person(s) lodging a complaint, as well as the member(s) being accused of any type of wrongdoing, have their integrity protected until all fact-finding is completed. We also want to assure everyone concerned that the American Society of Animal Science, the Journal of Animal Science, and the universities involved took this situation very seriously and dealt with it in what we believe was a legally appropriate and professional manner.

Received for publication April 12, 2006.

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 Males, J. R. Articles by Galyean, M. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Males, J. R. Articles by Galyean, M. L.