| 32. Dr. Jones has participated in a research trial sponsored by a medical device company. The company sends him a manuscript presenting the trial results and conclusions, written by a trained science writer the company has hired. Dr. Jones is asked to look over the text and to sign his name to the paper, which will then be submitted to a medical journal as his work. The company notes how busy Dr. Jones is and how hard it is to find time to write up research results. Dr. Jones will be paid $1000 for his help in putting his name on the manuscript. |
| # | Response Date | Comment |
| 1. | Tue, 3/13/07 11:35 PM | Serious plus this conflict should be stated in the publication. |
| 2. | Wed, 3/14/07 1:43 PM | This becomes a serious conflict of interest if Dr. Jones is too busy to critically read and correct, if necessary, the underlying data for which he is responsible. |
| 3. | Wed, 3/14/07 10:10 PM | Is he allowed to change or give advice regarding content based on data analysis. |
| 4. | Thu, 3/15/07 1:10 AM | This is just BAD science. |
| 5. | Thu, 3/15/07 8:26 PM | Dr. Jones must carefully review the manuscript to be sure it presents the results truthfully, and insist on any changes that are needed |
| 6. | Fri, 3/16/07 11:38 AM | ok if it reflects his findings and he is able to edit it |
| 7. | Sat, 3/17/07 4:27 PM | It depends on whether the manuscript is an acurate reflection of what Dr. Jones would have written if he had had the time, or how much it is swayed toward supporting the medical device despite the findings in the study. |
| 8. | Mon, 3/19/07 12:24 AM | If he agrees with the results and the way it is presented or not |
| 9. | Mon, 3/19/07 8:56 PM | Very serious COI, and a blatant violation of professional ethics. He is misrepresenting the work as his own. |
| 10. | Tue, 4/24/07 2:02 PM | If Dr. Jones actually reads, reviews and is able to edit the document to his satisfaction, no COI. If he is unable to edit the document or just signs his name to take credit for work not done, serious COI. |
| 11. | Tue, 4/24/07 10:02 PM | Not if Dr Jones is able to have input and make changes that are felt to be appropriate enough for Dr Jones to agree to the context of the paper and sign off on. |
| 12. | Wed, 4/25/07 1:37 PM | If Dr. Jones wanted to change the text, or disagreed with the conclusions and wasn't permitted to, this would be a serious COI and breach of ethics. If he could, it's a relatively more moderate COI. |
| 13. | Wed, 4/25/07 6:15 PM | If the results are well represented in the manuscript, without exageration f the findings, then there is not COI. The $1000 is for the time spent in reviewing the written manuscript for accuracy. |
| 14. | Thu, 4/26/07 12:39 AM | This is fraud |
| 15. | Thu, 4/26/07 9:25 PM | NEEDS TO ACTIVELY EDIT |
| 16. | Fri, 4/27/07 5:54 PM | The money is for the contribution of time to the research, not to "put his name on the paper." Ghost writing is an established and appropriate mechanism in research production. |
| 17. | Tue, 5/8/07 3:31 PM | ..... |
| 18. | Wed, 5/9/07 4:53 PM | if the report is accurate, it would be less of a conflict |