GUEST EDITORIAL
Guarding against the publication of
duplicate or fake research articles
David L. Turpin
Seattle, Wash
I
n questioning the authenticity of research findings
submitted for publication, I can look back on my
3 decades of serving as the editor of 3 different or-
thodontic publications. With the increased sophisticat-
ion of electronic communication networks, one would
think fraudulent publication practices are becoming
nonexistent. From what I know, that is not the case.
One experience of deception occurred early in my
term as editor of the American Journal of Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics, when I approved the pub-
lication of a rather short basic science article. It had been
carefully reviewed, and we published it within a period of
6-8 months. Shortly after we published the article, I was
contacted by an orthodontic reviewer for a European
journal who expressed a specific concern. The article
was the same as one just submitted to him for publica-
tion in another orthodontic journal, with 1 exception:
the title had been altered. To make matters worse, within
the month, I heard from another editor with similar
news—the same article had also been submitted to an
Asian orthodontic journal for publication.
You might think that it is unusual for an editor to
discover this type of problem. If so, you are correct. In
most situations, the first hint of premeditated deception
is uncovered by a dedicated reviewer. Reviewers are
selected to employ their years of experience related to
a specific area of expertise. They are asked to read and
understand the science being applied to a small niche
of the overall topic being subjected to the experimental
study. If the topic being studied is bonding adhesives (ie,
comparing the bond strength of 2 adhesives), it is com-
mon for a journal to work with a few dental materials
specialists across the globe. These specialists are always
looking for new research on the specifics of bonding,
as published in a wide variety of journals, and logically,
they would be the first to recognize an article that might
be a duplicate or even a fraudulent submission. In case
you wonder, the publication of an identical research
article is a very serious offense, often leading to
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:437-8
0889-5406/$36.00
Ó 2020 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.01.013
redaction of the paper by a journal. The journal involved
would also contact the university where the research was
completed, and they would have the option of sanc-
tioning the author, possibly leading to the loss of their
position at the university. The price to be paid by any
author who acts in this way is steep and often severe.
The identification of fake news or fake research sub-
missions also rests almost solely upon a solid corps of re-
viewers. These individuals are very highly trained in
specific fields of the specialty and have the ability and
dedication to screen out a deception.
Fake news, as proliferated during and since the
2016 U.S. election, is often completely fabricated and
is a very serious issue. Fake news, as we see it today,
is corrosive. It misinforms the public, divides people
against one another, leads to bad policy decisions,
and can even induce people to take action against
imaginary threats.
One might think that medical literature is immune to
this kind of fakery, but it is not. Recent years have seen
the appearance of journals from mainstream publishers
that are based entirely on pseudoscience. On the surface,
these publications look and act just like real scientific
journals, but it's all just pretend. The publishers of these
journals presumably care more about their bottom line
than about scientific integrity. They know that pseudo-
scientific journals will create a never-ending demand for
fake breakthroughs and scientific-sounding studies that
are built on a house of cards.
Scientific publishing giant Elsevier (publisher of the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Or-
thopedics) put out a total of 6 publications between
2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed phar-
maceutical companies. They looked like peer-reviewed
medical journals, but they did not disclose the company
sponsorship. Elsevier promptly conducted an internal re-
view of its publishing practices after allegations came to
light. At that time, Elsevier admitted that the company
produced a pharmaceutical company–funded publica-
tion in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “jour-
nal” was corporately sponsored. Since that time, the
company has admitted, “This was an unacceptable prac-
tice, and we regret that it took place.”
437
438
The key to responsibly keeping this problem in check
belongs to the editor of any journal, as supported by
thousands of hard-working and reliable associate editors
and reviewers. Of all reviewers, 94% believe that after re-
view and revision, a research article is greatly improved.
They note that poor study design can be a major prob-
lem, and this is due often to a small sample size. Another
problem is the selection of a topic that may not be novel
or even similar to something that has already been pub-
lished. And, of course, the article may even be inappro-
priate for the journal's audience.
According to a study I participated in years ago, re-
viewers have the following reasons for rejecting studies
as submitted for publication:
 Poor study design often based on a small sample size.
 The topic may not be novel, or it may be similar to an
article already published.
 The article is inappropriate for the readership of the
journal.
April 2020  Vol 157  Issue 4 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Guest editorial
The practice of publishing everything that hits an ed-
itor's desk must end. Of even greater importance is the
involvement of dedicated reviewers. Reviewers of this
quality are out there, but they are most often known
and identified by the associate editors of specialized sci-
entific journals. These are most often the researchers
who publish their findings regularly, speak internation-
ally, and are not closely tied to the manufacturers.
Many journals prohibit the publication of editorials,
letters to the editor, or traditional review articles by
anyone with a financial conflict of interest. Behavioral
economics shows us how easy it is to incentivize
behavior. Food, gifts, flattery, common ground, and
positive social relationships can contribute mightily to
our thoughts and opinions. We are all susceptible. We
all believe we are objective and can't be bought, but at
the same time, we also believe that others certainly can.
Most susceptible are those who think they are not.
Take all the time you need to think about that last
statement!