@article{3123580,
    title = "Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing",
    author = "Mavrogenis, A.F. and Panagopoulos, G.N. and Megaloikonomos, P.D. and Panagopoulos, V.N. and Mauffrey, C. and Quaile, A. and Scarlat, M.M.",
    journal = "Orthopedic Reviews",
    year = "2018",
    volume = "41",
    number = "2",
    pages = "e176-e183",
    publisher = "SLACK Incorporated",
    doi = "10.3928/01477447-20180123-06",
    keywords = "ethics;  fraud;  human;  human experiment;  medical literature;  orthopedics;  peer review;  publishing;  review;  scientific misconduct;  software;  validation process;  fraud, Editorial Policies;  Fraud;  Humans;  Medical Writing;  Peer Review;  Plagiarism;  Publishing;  Scientific Misconduct",
    abstract = "Scientific misconduct (fraud) in medical writing is an important and not infrequent problem for the scientific community. Although noteworthy examples of fraud surface occasionally in the media, detection of fraud in medical publishing is generally not as straightforward as one might think. National bodies on ethics in science, strict selection criteria, a robust peer-review process, careful statistical validation, and anti-plagiarism and image-fraud detection software contribute to the production of high-quality manuscripts. This article reviews the various types of fraud in medical writing, discusses the related literature, and describes tools journals implement to unmask fraud. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e176-e183]. © 2018 Slack Incorporated. All rights reserved."
}