Suspicion of fabricated data in a manuscript
- The reviewer reports his suspicion of fabricated data.
- Thank the reviewer, ask for documentary evidence (if it is not yet available) and communicate your intention to investigate.
- Consider obtaining a second opinion from another reviewer.
- Contact the author to explain concerns, but do not make direct accusations (Two alternatives: 1 and 2).
1. The author responds (Two alternatives: a and b)
a) Unsatisfactory response or admission of guilt
Inform all authors that you will attempt to contact the centers and the regulated body.
Contact author(s)' centers and request an investigation (Three alternatives: x, y and z)
x) The author is acquitted
Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result. Continue, if appropriate, with the peer review.
Inform the reviewer of the result.
y) The author is found guilty
Reject the manuscript.
Inform the reviewer of the result.
z) No response or unsatisfactory response
Contact regulatory bodies and request an investigation.
b) Satisfactory explanation
Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer(s) of the result. Continue, if appropriate, with the peer review.
2. Does not respond
Try to contact all the other authors (consult the metadata in the OJS platform to find their emails and write again) (Two alternatives: a and b).
a) If they respond, the alternative with a response is resumed.
b) If they don't respond then:
Contact the center where the author works and request that your concern be transmitted to the author's superiors or the person responsible for research standards, in collaboration, if appropriate, with the co-authors' centers.
If there is no response contact regulatory bodies and request an investigation (Two alternatives: a and b)
a) The author is acquitted, then:
Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result and continue, if appropriate, with the peer review.
b) The author is found guilty, then:
Reject the manuscript.
Inform the reviewer of the result.
