Suspicion of fabricated data in an article

(b) Suspicion of fabricated data in an article

• A reader reports his suspicion of fabricated data
• Thank the reader and communicate your intention to investigate
• Consider obtaining a second opinion from another reviewer
• Contact the author to explain the concerns, but do not make a
  direct accusation (Two alternatives a and b)

1. a) The author responds (Two alternatives 1 and 2)

1. Unsatisfactory response or admission of guilt

• Inform all authors that you will try to contact the centers and the
  regulatory body
• Contact the center(s) of the author(s) and request an investigation (Two alternatives)

1. The authors are guilty of invention

• Post a retraction
• Inform readers of the result

1. The authors are not guilty

• Apologize to the author(s)
• Inform readers of the result

1. satisfactory explanation

• Apologize to the author
• Publish a correction if appropriate (e.g. if an
  unintentional error was detected)
• Inform readers of the result

1. b) Does not respond

• Try to contact all the other authors (consult
  the metadata in the OJS platform to find their emails and write again. If they respond, the alternative with a response is resumed). If you 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 you don't respond:
• Contact the regulatory body and request an investigation (Three alternatives 1, 2 and 3)

1. The author is acquitted, then:

• Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result and continue, if appropriate, with the peer review

1. The author is found guilty, then:

• Reject the manuscript
• Inform the reader of the result

1. No response or unsatisfactory response

• Post an expression of concern
• Inform the reader of the result