The classic example that I can think of for current misconduct and its effect on public health practice is the extremely damaging effect that the Lancet article in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield (which has since been retracted)  has had on vaccination rates (and by extension the resurgence of measles) in the US. Since this one study came out, several much more scientifically credible studies have come out showing that vaccines do not cause autism. However, the public hangs on to the evidence from that one study and unfortunately, very highly visible media stars have endorsed this harmful belief that people should not vaccinate their children, or should do so on a delayed schedule. This has severely harmed public health advances in nearly eradicating measles in the US.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/lancet_wakefield_autism_mmr_au.html

It is not clear to me by what you mean by "publication misconduct"? Do you mean publishing false findings of a study, or something else?

What was your operational definition for 'Publication Misconduct'? I guess that may help in relating it to public health practice.

In the Bioelectromagnetics-area this misconduct is a big problem. Especially if you Ashish mean the effect of big industry on research results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/

http://microwavenews.com/RR.html

And yes, it definitely affects public health (practices). Precaution and prevention is not in place, since "Doubt is their Product":

http://defendingscience.org/writing-and-speeches/doubt-their-product

Take care

MIkko

Ariel Linden and Saeed Anwar - Sir Publication misconduct operational definition was Gift authorship , ghost authorship , salami, fabrication , falsification and  plagiarism

I can certainly envisage where some of these issues would impact public health. For instance, assume that study findings about a particular intervention were fabricated/falsified and the paper received much favorable support from the health care industry. These organizations begin to implement the intervention and find that their patients react negatively to the intervention (rather than improving their health, it decreases their health). Not only would this lead to worse health outcomes, but unnecessarily increase costs that could have been spent on interventions with truly positive outcomes.

This is not a hypothetical situation since there are many cases where industry sponsored studies produce results that are favorable, but indeed may be biased to the point where they can lead to harm.

Thankyou

Good luck, Ashish!

The classic example that I can think of for current misconduct and its effect on public health practice is the extremely damaging effect that the Lancet article in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield (which has since been retracted)  has had on vaccination rates (and by extension the resurgence of measles) in the US. Since this one study came out, several much more scientifically credible studies have come out showing that vaccines do not cause autism. However, the public hangs on to the evidence from that one study and unfortunately, very highly visible media stars have endorsed this harmful belief that people should not vaccinate their children, or should do so on a delayed schedule. This has severely harmed public health advances in nearly eradicating measles in the US.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/lancet_wakefield_autism_mmr_au.html

I am sorry, Mrs. Angelon-Gaetz, but your example is not the best one.

The CDC itself has been hiding important information about autism:

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-whistleblower-comes-forward-admits-coverup-on-vaccine-link-to-autism/

I am not interested in vaccines, I am just saying that the Wakefield case is not a good example of publication misconduct since the CDC may be tweaking data. 

I liked the following article about medical research:

http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGRNL42_Obstaclestohonesty.pdf

Mikko, I would say that Kim's example is a good one, as is yours. Certainly there are many facets to the issue of "misconduct" in regards to publications. This can be broken down into many different categories, and many different driving forces. For example, if researchers did not have to grovel for grant money to conduct research, they might be more inclined to report the true results of their research. Similarly, if tenure was not based so heavily on publication (and in top tiered journals), then researchers would not be so inclined to falsify their work. The list of issues goes on and on, but there should be more effort devoted to prevent this problem from continuing.

Mikko, the Wakefield article is a good example of publication misconduct because he know that his data was false before he submitted it.  Despite the revelation that he falsified his data, those who are against vaccines continue to use it as evidence that vaccines cause autism.  The CDC had nothing to do with the conduct or publication of the Wakefield article.

I also believe that publication misconduct such as plagiarism is also very damaging.  Claiming information that is not one's own allows for a process whereby the actual investigators become mired in time and effort to right what has been done.  It could also lead to faulty practice if the interpretation of the actual findings are misconstrued.  It is so important that students are provided information on how to appropriately conduct research and report the findings.

The reference below may offer a useful overview on publication ethics, from the perspective of a new on-line journal that our health systems firm is supporting:

Nanan D. Defining ourselves by our publication ethics. Global Journal of Medicine and Public Health. 2013; 2, 4: 1-2. http://www.gjmedph.org/uploads/E-Vo2No4.pdf

Plagiarism is only one aspect in publication ethics. Clinical and public health research, education, and medical practice are vulnerable to influence by corporate interests driven by the for-profit motive. Developments over the last 10 years have shown that transparency and self-reporting of corporate ties do not always mitigate bias. In this article, we provide examples of how sound scientific reasoning and evidence-gathering are undermined through compromised scientific enquiry resulting in misleading science, decision-making, and policy Intervention. Various medical disciplines provide reference literature essential for informing public, environmental, and occupational health policy. Published literature impacts clinical and laboratory methods, the validity of respective clinical guidelines, and the development and implementation of public health regulations. Said literature is also used in expert testimony related to resolving tort actions on work-related illnesses and environmental risks. We call for increased sensitivity, full transparency, and the implementation of effective ethical and professional praxis rules at all relevant regulatory levels to rout out inappropriate corporate influence in science. This is needed because influencing the integrity of scientists who engage in such activities cannot be depended upon.

The previous comment by Budnik prompts me to offer the following thoughts:

There are many types of incorporated entities (beyond the drug manufacturers for example, that most people automatically think of when they see the word "firm"), among which are "fourth sector" or "social enterprises" (such as ours ) that use a business model to create social benefit. 

In our instance, most of our work is focused on developing country settings, much of which is pro bono, including our efforts to promote developing country science publishing e.g., GJMEDPH . 

ResearchGate itself can be viewed as a for-benefit social enterprise (social networking to be precise), based on a corporate model. See Wikipedia on this: We are, in fact, using this valuable model for this conversation.

It is important therefore to actually read around this alternative approach to the use of the corporate model, and not to throw the babies out with the bathwater.

It is equally important to recognize that, just because most researchers are based with universities or government agencies (including most RG participants) that these are somehow exempt from forms of commercial bias, often in disguise.

I discuss this in the following section of our recently published text (citation below).  The following extract (omiting reference numbers) may be of interest:

"The emergent outcome of these trends is that many public and voluntary organizations no longer operate in the “pure” manner implied. Increasingly public enterprises compete with the private sector, while the voluntary sector has become commercially astute. For example, the success of many not-for-profit organizations today is due to a fully funded core staff, supplemented by contract income, thus able to build “working capital funds”, while remaining eligible for government grants (competitive advantage retained). In effect, such NGOs have become a good “business model” (now accepted terminology). Meanwhile, many public sector entities (including some public health agencies) have become so depleted that they must hire private contractors to deliver the expertise that actually belongs with their public mandate. In addition to consulting firms, much of this is now obtained from universities, themselves having become “hybrid” organizations. Faculty engaged in consulting generate substantial overhead income for the institution.

Even publicly-funded universities now engage in industry partnerships while receiving government financing, and simultaneously contracting out services to government."

Reference: White F, Stallones L, Last JM. Global Public health - Ecological Foundations.  Chapter 4 Community Foundations of Public Health (section on New Trends in Organizational Forms and Functions, pp 81-82).  Oxford University Press. New York. 2015.

PS: Come to think of it, Oxford University Press also appears to fit this social benefit corporate model, as do many other academic publishing houses.