Blogs

Suspicious responses to authorship change requests

Admin
18, Jun 2022

A journal received a request for multiple changes to the authorship list after the manuscript was accepted. Originally, there were five co-authors. After acceptance, the journal received the following requests from author A, the corresponding author and co-first author: remove one of the co-authors (author D), add a new co-author (author E), reorder the list of authors, and change the designated co-first authors. The publisher explained that before processing any authorship changes after an article is accepted, the consent of all co-authors is required. All authors except author D responded promptly, and author A ultimately had to chase author D. The response from author D was somewhat suspicious; it was from an unfamiliar email address (ie, not the one provided at the time of submission of the manuscript), the text matched verbatim the response from author A and was oddly phrased, and the email was unsigned. Given these peculiarities, the publisher quickly replied to author D, asking if they could reiterate their consent to the proposed changes, preferably via an institutional address. Author D never responded, even after sending a follow-up message. Without that confirmation, the publisher did not think they could presume to have author D’s consent to make the changes requested by author A. Author A insisted on the changes but eventually said that to avoid further delays, the publisher could proceed with publication using the current author list. The article was published. After publication, however, author A contacted the publisher again, claiming there had been a misunderstanding and that they still wanted at least author E to be added. The publisher reiterated that consent from author D was outstanding, even for that one change. Author A again chased author D, and the publisher suddenly received a follow-up email stating they agreed to be removed as a co-author. However, that email was even more suspicious; a third non-institutional email address was introduced, the spelling of author D’s first name changed between the second and third email addresses, and the spelling of the author D’s surname in the body of the third email did not match any of the email addresses, any prior correspondence, or the published article. The publisher suspects the corresponding author forged both of author D’s responses, but this is a serious accusation, particularly without having definitive proof.

Largest Study to Date Supports CRC Screening Before Age 50

Admin
11, Jun 2022

Results of the largest study of screening colonoscopies in average-risk adults younger than age 50 provide strong support for lowering the screening age to 45 years, by showing a "substantial" prevalence of advanced neoplasia in this age group.

Combined use of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes does not reduce cardiovascular disease risk

Admin
09, Jun 2022

People who use both traditional (combustible) cigarettes and e-cigarettes do not reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease compared to people who exclusively use traditional cigarettes, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association's flagship, peer-reviewed journal Circulation