Good intentions alone are not enough to protect researchers from performing bad clinical research. This review examines areas that are most likely to cause problems, in particular duplicate publication, conflict of interest, authorship, and data storage. It also discusses the way journal editors approach research conduct issues, and how to create a research environment conducive to good research conduct.

The conduct of clinical research is increasingly governed by rules. Some are statutory, and others derive from guidelines drawn up by universities, funding bodies, and editors of medical journals. In the past, the conduct of research was a matter of passive trust between authors and journals, and between “hands on” researchers and their supervisors. In contrast, researchers and research managers must now actively work at maintaining good conduct in research. The UK Medical Research Council has identified the key research virtues as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, honesty, and leadership:¹ qualities that, one hopes, all paediatricians would aspire to. But what relevance has this to day-to-day clinical research, beyond an aspiration to be good? Specifically, where do researchers unwittingly fall foul of acceptable standards of research conduct? This review is aimed at the well intentioned clinical researcher who strives to keep within the rules, and focuses on areas that cause the most problems.

DUPLICATE PUBLICATION

A duplicate publication is one that overlaps substantially with an article published elsewhere, and is usually published by the same author.² Recently, authors of systematic reviews in anaesthesia found 103 potential duplicate publications (secondary publications) linked to 78 corresponding primary articles (that is, those published first). Specific patterns of duplication were identified.³ First was the straight copy, for example, where the results of a study were re-published in a pharmaceutical sponsored supplement. Second was where the data from a single …