Allegations of research errors and fraud

Then a note, corrigendum or retraction process may be appropriate remedies. Note that there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate description of the error or wrong-doing.

• It may be appropriate for such a note to simply indicate that the research work reported in the article contained errors (if only some parts of the research was invalid) and if the editor concludes the mistake was unintentional.
• If the errors are more critical or the fraud more pervasive, a more critical statement may be appropriate (with legal review for defamation).
• Ultimately the editor may need to make a judgment as to the appropriate language for the statement, if there is no consensus, and should do so in consultation with Elsevier staff.

Then the editor will have to consider whether the author’s explanation is reasonable. Normally the editor would also inform the complainant of the author’s explanation and seek comment (see Form letter B).

Then the editor should refer the matter to the institution or company employing the author/co-authors noting the allegation of fraud (see Form letter C).

Then the editor should inform the corresponding author and complainant that the editor will seriously consider the judgment of the institution (through a corrigendum or Elsevier's retraction and removal procedures).

Then this should be reviewed with the complainant. Perhaps the complainant is better placed to make the complaint directly with the institution.

To determine this, review disclosure statements or acknowledgments in the article. If so, the editor should consider contacting the agency (using Form letter E).

Then the editor will be expected to make a determination, in his or her reasonable judgment, as to the underlying facts and to make a recommendation to Elsevier (and possibly the society for a society journal), which Elsevier staff will implement normally through the retraction and removal process.

It may be advisable for the editor in this fact-finding process to request the views and comments of third parties who may be expected to have knowledge of the facts alleged by the complainant.