Letters
Information science
Volume 186 - Issue 12

Research misconduct: can Australia learn from the UK’s stuttering system?

Author:  Peter T Wilmshurst

Med J Aust 2007; 186 (12): 662-663. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01097.x
Published online: 18 June 2007
Download PDF (1 MB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: In his article on research misconduct,1 Marcovitch cited my article on institutional corruption in medicine, which was published in the BMJ in 2002.2 He states:

Readers of the MJA will have to find the paper version in their libraries, as the electronic version has been replaced on the BMJ’s website . . . with the bald statement that it has been removed for legal reasons.

In case any of your readers are concerned that the article has been retracted, I would like to point out that the article was removed from the website on 10 June 2004, when Dr Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ. Dr Smith cited my article in his own article on research misconduct in 2006.3 He would not have done so if the article had been retracted. Neither would Marcovitch.1

My article described how some senior individuals in British academic medicine had concealed misconduct for a decade. The article had an editorial footnote stating: “Documentary evidence corroborating this article was made available by Dr Wilmshurst to the BMJ.” It was cleared for publication by the BMJ’s lawyers. An “Editor’s Choice” column entitled Corruption in medicine accompanied my article online.4 That column has also been removed from the website. It stated: “The article by Wilmshurst has its origins in a seminar he gave to the BMJ in 1996. For years he had been informing us of misdemeanours. Fear of libel stopped us from publishing.”4

Ironically, it was fear of libel actions that caused the BMJ to remove the article from the website. Soon after publication, the BMJ received threats of libel actions from academics and their institutions. Dr Smith and I spent considerable time working with lawyers to counter these challenges. None came to court, but the legal costs for the BMJ’s insurers mounted. It was pointed out that a libel action must be started within 1 year of publication. Because the article was on the website it was constantly being republished. If it was removed from the website there could be no more threats of litigation after 1 year. Therefore, the insurance company that covers the BMJ against libel insisted that the article be removed from the website.

If readers are unable to get a copy, they can email me and I will send a PDF version.

View this article on Wiley Online Library