Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction

Our Commitment to Research Integrity

The International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology believes that trust forms the backbone of scientific publishing. When that trust is broken — whether through deliberate deception or honest error — we have a responsibility to act. Our readers, fellow researchers, and the broader medical community depend on the accuracy of what we publish.

What We Consider Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct takes many forms, and not all of them are equally serious. That said, we take all of them seriously. Here's what falls under this umbrella:

Data fabrication — inventing results that were never actually obtained. This is perhaps the most clear-cut form of fraud.

Data falsification — manipulating research data, equipment, or processes to change results. This includes deceptive manipulation of images, such as selectively cropping, enhancing, or altering photographs or figures to misrepresent findings.

Plagiarism — presenting someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own without proper attribution. This applies to text, data, figures, and concepts.

Hidden conflicts of interest — deliberately failing to disclose relationships, financial interests, or activities that could influence the interpretation of research.

Suppression of results — some consider the deliberate failure to publish clinical trial results a form of misconduct, particularly when negative findings are buried. While we recognize this is a matter of ongoing debate, we encourage full transparency.

Methodological problems — research integrity can also be compromised by fundamentally flawed methodology, even without deliberate intent to deceive.

How We Handle Allegations

When we receive an allegation of misconduct — or when concerns arise about the integrity of submitted or published work — we don't take it lightly, but we also don't rush to judgment. We follow procedures outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which provides a framework for handling these sensitive situations fairly.

Depending on the nature of the concern, we may contact the authors' institution or funding bodies. If an institutional investigation is underway, we'll follow up to learn the outcome. Throughout this process, we try to balance the need for transparency with fairness to all parties involved.

Expressions of Concern

Sometimes we have serious doubts about an article but lack definitive proof of wrongdoing. An investigation might be ongoing, or evidence may be inconclusive. In such cases, we may publish an Expression of Concern.

This isn't something we do casually. An Expression of Concern alerts readers that there are questions about the work while an inquiry proceeds. It's a way of being transparent without being premature.

If the concern is later resolved — whether through vindication of the authors or confirmation of problems — we'll update readers accordingly.

Retractions

Retraction is a serious step, and we reserve it for situations where there's clear evidence that the findings are unreliable — whether due to misconduct or honest error — or where ethical violations have occurred.

When we retract an article, we do it properly. A retraction notice isn't just a letter buried in correspondence. It appears prominently, on a numbered page that's indexed and searchable. The notice includes the original article's title in its heading, explains clearly why the retraction was necessary, and provides a full citation to the original work.

In our online systems, retracted articles remain accessible — science benefits from knowing what didn't work out — but they're clearly marked as retracted across all formats: abstract, full text, and PDF. We also ensure that the retraction notice and original article are linked in both directions, so readers can't encounter one without being aware of the other.

Ideally, the authors themselves issue the retraction. We prefer it that way — it demonstrates accountability. But if authors are unwilling or unable to do so, the editor may issue the retraction independently when circumstances warrant.

When Trust Is Broken: Looking at the Bigger Picture

If an author is found to have committed fraud, it raises questions about their other work. We can't simply assume that papers unrelated to the retracted one are sound. In such cases, we may ask the author's institution to vouch for the validity of other articles published in our journal.

If we don't receive satisfactory assurance, we may publish an announcement noting that the reliability of previously published work by the same author is uncertain. This isn't about punishment — it's about protecting the scientific record.

When It's Not Misconduct, But There's Still Disagreement

Not every dispute rises to the level of misconduct. Sometimes legitimate scientific disagreement exists about methodology, interpretation, or conclusions. In these cases, we may facilitate an exchange of letters or correspondence, allowing different perspectives to be aired.

Science advances through debate, and we see value in letting readers hear multiple voices — even when (especially when) they disagree.

Reporting Concerns

If you have concerns about the integrity of any work published in or submitted to IJMA, please contact our editorial office at anesthesiologypaper@gmail.com. We treat all reports confidentially and investigate them thoroughly.