Hutchon: NCFM, UOG & ISUOG
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts.”
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")
Hutchon Method of PDEE: Summary & Conclusion
Dr. Hutchon sent 2 registered letters (see Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE 26.07.2007 & 17.09.2007) addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" dated 26.07.2007 (original letter) and 17.09.2007 (follow-up letter due to neither action nor reply from UOG) seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG, which claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, as their own original idea and method and, thereby, engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism which continues today. At the time, Dr. Yves Ville was Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) also known as The White Journal. Dr. Hutchon was not aware of NCFM Snurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method. Dr. Hutchon was also not aware of NCFM eSnurra Group's recognized collaboration which resulted in Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method.
It is interesting to note:
The 4 occasions on which Dr. Hutchon requested a by-the-book investigation and redress from UOG and Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, are summarized below.
"Follow the Money"
Also, there was an always-obvious obstacle in the way of UOG & ISUOG doing the right thing, money. Strula H. Eik-Nes, head of NCFM eSnurra Group and coauthor of their Gjessing et al. 2007, had, in his first year as President of ISUOG (1998-2002), had engineered a generous grant from the Norwegian Government to establish and fund ISUOG’s Outreach Program.
Ironically, Sturla H. Eik-Nes was, himself, a coauthor victim of plagiarism in the Asim Kurjak case, discussed in BMJ by Iain Chalmers: "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" to which Sturla H. Eik-Nes wrote a 01.12.2006 response in which he stated...
Sturla H. Eik-Nes coauthored the article "Pillory after research fraud - will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?") in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen (Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Harm-Gerd K. Blaas and Kjell Å. Salvesen) which discussed the problem of plagiarism and the need for sanctions and public disclosure of the plagiarists, which included the 2 excerpts below.
Back to 1999
In July 1999 Dr. Hutchon submitted his manuscript to UOG: "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Dr. Hutchon's manuscript presented his idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in greater detail, depth and communication of benefits than his Hutchon 1998, published 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net. The receipt of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript was acknowledged by Trish Chudleigh, Ultrasound Editor of UOG in her letter to Dr. Hutchon dated 13.07.1999 which included the assigned UOG manuscript code "UOG 99/155." Additionally, Trish Cudleigh’s letter stated, "Your paper will be sent out to referees shortly..." However, someone at UOG put a still-unexplained, 115-day hold on Dr. Hutchon's manuscript before it was finally sent out to referees for review on 05 November 1999 to 3 UOG referees identified by their Editors' Codes: 28, 210 & 504. All 3 referees' reviews were eventually returned to UOG 88-days later on 02.01.2000, which was 203-days after Dr. Hutchon's manuscript UOG 99/155 had been received by UOG, which begs the question: Who or what delayed sending UOG 99/155 to referees' review for 115 days and who or what delayed UOG 99/155 during referees' review for 88 days, or, more simply, why did all this take 203 days? Interestingly, the number of words in each of the 3 referees' reviews varried, widely, with a word-count mean of 885 and standard deviation of 748. Other text analyses were performed on the 3 referees' reviews, and while their results are decidedly informative, they - do not explain the 88-day delay, almost 3 months.
It is interesting to note the following:
It strains credulity Sturla H. Eik-Nes was not aware of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript submission in 1999 given the fact:
Regarding Plagiarism, Reviewers, Editors & Publishers
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria:
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends detailed procedures for editors regarding scientific misconduct (i.e., data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism).
One would think lessons learned from UOG & ISUOG's 2002 private-wrist-slaps handling of UOG Editorial Board Member Asim Kurjak's case of plagiarism would have had some effect on UOG & ISUOG's professional and ethical responsibilities to the public and the public trust with respect to their handling of Dr. Hutchon's 4 separate, formal communication attempts seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Unfortunately, UOG & ISUOG completely failed all parties, including themselves, but especially the public and the public trust. There were, and continue to be, real-world consequences among the public due to UOG & ISUOG's uninvestigated, uncontested and conscious indifference to the consequences of the plagiarism reported by Dr. Hutchon; consequences which caused, and continue to cause, increased medical risks and grievous medical harms to some of the public, specifically, some of Norway's women and their babies who are among the most vulnerable to breaches of the public trust.
To conclude, and with respect to Dr. Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Dr. Yves Ville, UOG & ISUOG, everyone knew, or reasonably should have known, what they were doing, and what they were not doing, were unethical, unprofessional and flat-out wrong. Moreover, the conscious indifference to the consequences of the plagiarism reported by Dr. Hutchon was, and will remain, an ethical and professional breach and, an egregious breach of the public trust that caused, and causes, increased medical risks, medical mistakes and grievous medical harms.
Dr. Hutchon sent 2 registered letters (see Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE 26.07.2007 & 17.09.2007) addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" dated 26.07.2007 (original letter) and 17.09.2007 (follow-up letter due to neither action nor reply from UOG) seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG, which claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, as their own original idea and method and, thereby, engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism which continues today. At the time, Dr. Yves Ville was Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) also known as The White Journal. Dr. Hutchon was not aware of NCFM Snurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method. Dr. Hutchon was also not aware of NCFM eSnurra Group's recognized collaboration which resulted in Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method.
It is interesting to note:
- On 31.07.2017 Dr. Hutchon was informed his manuscript, "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" and associated files had been removed from UOG's system in November 2007, with the reason for the removal and by whom still unknown to Dr. Hutchon and, apparently, unknown to Ms. Sarah Hatcher, Managing Editor, UOG who informed Dr. Hutchon of the removal within 17-minutes of Dr. Hutchon's email request for a copy of his manuscript (see Hutchon Timeline entry 31.07.2017).
- It is a documented fact Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE were published in his seminal Hutchon 1998 on 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net.
- Dr. Hutchon submitted a more robust manuscript for his idea and method of PDEE to UOG in 1999, the receipt of which was acknowledged by Trish Chudleigh, Ultrasound Editor of UOG, in her letter to Dr. Hutchon dated 13.07.1999 which included the assigned UOG manuscript code: "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Dr. Hutchon's second manuscript was a more robust, in-depth demonstration of the details, features and benefits of the Hutchon Method of PDEE than were presented in his seminal Hutchon 1998 and his Hutchon.net, of which UOG were aware.
- 4-months prior to Dr. Hutchon's manuscript's unexplained, undocumented removal from UOG's manuscript management system in November 2007, NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007: "A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach" was published on 08.06.2007 in UOG, and claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE as their own original idea and method and, thereby, engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism that continues today. Moreover, 2 years prior to NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 was published by UOG, which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE, however, Dr. Hutchon was not aware of this earlier occurrence, nor was Dr. Hutchon aware of NCFM Snurra Group's Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, published in xxxxx, which had also appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE.
- 1-month prior to Dr. Hutchon's manuscript's unexplained, undocumented removal from UOG's manuscript management system, Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG had coauthored and presented a poster abstract, Salomon et al. 2007 (L. J. Salomon, C. Pizzi, A. Gasparrini, J. P. Bernard and Y. Ville), unbeknownst to Dr. Hutchon, at ISUOG's 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007; a poster abstract which was based, entirely, on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon, his seminal Hutchon 1998, his Hutchon.net website or his other published works. Moreover, the Salomon et al. 2007 poster abstract, coauthored by Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, was published by UOG as: "OP07.07: Predictions of the median interval in days between first trimester ultrasound examination and delivery" in UOG's Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007 (see Hutchon Timeline entries: 08.10.2007 & October 2007 (3 posters)). There were 74-days between Dr. Hutchon's first registered letter addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" on 26.07.2007 and the 21.09.2007 publication of Salomon et al. 2007, coauthored by Dr. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG; plenty of time for Dr. Ville, UOG & ISUOG to have done the right thing.
- The work presented in Salomon et al. 2007, a poster abstract coauthored by Dr. Yves Ville, and presented at ISUOG's 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 08.10.2007, resulted in Salomon et al. 2010, also coauthored by Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG: "Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception" (Laurent J. Salomon, Costanza Pizzi, Antonio Gasparrini, Jean-Pierre Bernard & Yves Ville, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 23, 2010 - Issue 1. Received 12 Apr 2009, Accepted 29 May 2009, Published online: 11 Dec 2009); Salomon et al. 2010 was based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon or his Hutchon 1998, website or his other publications. However, Salomon et al. 2010 cited NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, extensively.
- 1 month prior to Dr. Hutchon's manuscript's unexplained, undocumented removal from UOG's manuscript management system, NCFM eSnurra Group authors (S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. K. Blaas, P. Grøttum, H. K. Gjessing, I. Økland & T. M. Eggebø) had presented 3 poster abstracts at ISUOG's 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007; all 3 poster abstracts were based, entirely, on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE. Moreover, these poster abstracts were subsequently published as: 1) Økland et al. 2007a (I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes): "OC01: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the FL-based predictions, 2) Eik-Nes et al, 2007 (S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. K. Blaas, P. Grottom, H. K. Gjessing): "OP08.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new population-based approach for the prediction of day of delivery based on Femur length" " and 3) Økland et al. 2007b ( I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes): "OP08.02: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the BPD-based predictions" all 3 published in UOG's Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007 without attribution to Dr. Hutchon or his Hutchon 1998 or his other publications (see entries: 08.10.2007 & October 2007 (4 posters)).
- NCFM eSnurra Group, which included Sturla H. Eik-Nes, former President ISUOG (1998-2002) and the Salomon et. al Group, which included Dr. Ives Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, presented their poster abstracts, all of which were based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon, his Hutchon 1998, website or his other publications, at the 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007. Ironically, the Eik-Nes et al, 2007, Økland et al. 2007b and Salomon et al. 2007 posters all appeared on the very same page, page 478, of UOG's Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007, which begs the question: What were the odds 2 different research/study groups with 1 and 3 poster abstracts, respectively, whose collective authors spanned 4 different countries, whose collective authorship credits totaled 18 would have plagiarized the same idea and method and then ended up side-by-side, literally (literally) on the same page (p. 478) of the same international, academic, medical journal? Link to page 478 to confirm OP07.07, OP08.01 & OP08.02 all appear on the same page (p. 478): view epdf and/or download pdf. The odds-defying, common factors for this were UOG & ISUOG and Sturla H. Eik-Nes & Yves Ville.
- Salomon et al. 2010, coauthored by Dr. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG: "Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception" which was based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE, extensively cited NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG, the very same UOG published paper for which Dr. Hutchon had contacted Dr.Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, on 4 separate occasions, once in person face-to-face, seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper published by UOG.
- Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, had been made aware NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, published by UOG, had appropriated Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Dr. Yves Ville had been contacted on 4 separate occasions before the 11.12.2009 publication of Salomon et al. 2010, coauthored by Dr. Ville, while Dr. Ville was Editor-in-Chief of UOG, in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. Dr. Hutchon's first registered letter seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress, addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" was dated 26.07.2007, consequently, there were 74-days between Dr. Hutchon's first registered letter and Dr. Ville's presentation of his coauthored poster abstract at the 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007, subsequently published 21.09.2007 by UOG. Also, there were 840-days between Dr. Hutchon's first registered letter addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" on 26.07.2007 and the publication of Salomon et al. 2010, coauthored by Dr. Ville, while Editor-in-Chief of UOG. Consequently there was plenty of time and opportunity for Dr. Ville, UOG & ISUOG to have done the right thing with respect to both publications.
The 4 occasions on which Dr. Hutchon requested a by-the-book investigation and redress from UOG and Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, are summarized below.
- 26.07.2007 Registered letter addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology" with copies to 9 others including NCFM eSnurra Group's H. K. Gjessing, sought a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation of the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 published by UOG 08.06.2007.
- 17.09.2007 Registered lLetter addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology", a follow-up letter due to neither action nor communication from UOG or Dr. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, again sought a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation of the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 published by UOG 08.06.2007.
- 29.02.2008 Dr. Hutchon sought out and met, face-to-face, with Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, after Dr. Ville's 14:10 Ultrasound diagnostics presentation at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London commemorating Dr. Ian Donald. Dr. Hutchon communicated his disappointment and frustration that Dr. Ville and UOG had taken no action after he had sent 2 registered letters to UOG addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacologyl" Consequently, Dr. Hutchon again requested Dr. Ville to initiate a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Dr. Ville assured Dr. Hutchon he would investigate and then proceeded to tell Dr. Hutchon his idea and method were "brilliant." (See Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE 29.02.2008 & 13.02.2009). Neither Dr. Ville nor anyone else at UOG ever investigated or followed-up with Dr. Hutchon. Also, Dr. Hutchon had been unaware of the Salomon et al. 2007 poster abstract, coauthored by Dr. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE, presented at the 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007 and published by UOG 4-months prior to Dr. Hutchon and Dr. Ville's 29.02.2008 face-to-face meeting. Moreover, Dr. Hutchon was unaware of his manuscript's unexplained, undocumented "removal" from UOG's manuscript management system in November 2007, 3-months prior to his 29.02.2008 face-to-face meeting with Dr. Ville at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London to commemorate Dr. Ian Donald.
- Subsequent to their 29.02.2008 face-to-face meeting at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London, Dr. Hutchon "sent Dr. Ville at least one registered letter with all the supporting data" (See Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE 13.02.2009). Again, neither Dr. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, nor anyone else at UOG or ISUOG ever replied to Dr. Hutchon's multiple requests for a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 published 08.06.2007 by UOG.
"Follow the Money"
Also, there was an always-obvious obstacle in the way of UOG & ISUOG doing the right thing, money. Strula H. Eik-Nes, head of NCFM eSnurra Group and coauthor of their Gjessing et al. 2007, had, in his first year as President of ISUOG (1998-2002), had engineered a generous grant from the Norwegian Government to establish and fund ISUOG’s Outreach Program.
- "ISUOG's first Outreach program was developed with the support of the World Health Organization (WHO) and funding from the National Center for Fetal Medicine (NCFM, Norway), and Norwegian government." (Source: Wikipedia entry for: International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology) [Note: Since NCFM is funded by the Norwegian government it would appear some of the Norwegian government’s generous grant funds were funneled through NCFM for brand attribution and affiliation purposes to the benefit of Sturla H. Eik-Nes, head of NCFM and President, ISUOG (1998 – 2002).]
Ironically, Sturla H. Eik-Nes was, himself, a coauthor victim of plagiarism in the Asim Kurjak case, discussed in BMJ by Iain Chalmers: "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" to which Sturla H. Eik-Nes wrote a 01.12.2006 response in which he stated...
- "I am writing this letter as President of International Society of Ultrasound of [sic] Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) during the period of 1998 – 2002" (Source: "The case of Asim Kurjak - ISUOG Statement of 2002" BMJ 2006;333:594) Also see: Hutchon Timeline entry 01.12.2006).
Sturla H. Eik-Nes coauthored the article "Pillory after research fraud - will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?") in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen (Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Harm-Gerd K. Blaas and Kjell Å. Salvesen) which discussed the problem of plagiarism and the need for sanctions and public disclosure of the plagiarists, which included the 2 excerpts below.
- "When the people who have cheated are not subjected to sanctions, it is unlikely that the problem will disappear."
- Scientific misconduct can occur everywhere." ("Vitenskapelig uredelighet kan forekomme overalt.")
- "Plagiarism of Blaas' research triggered a condemnation of Kurjak and Kupesic from the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2002, but the reaction of the association was not disclosed. In retrospect, we believe this was unfortunate." (see Hutchon Timeline entry 16.11.2006).
- "Effective and independent strategies for investigating researchers suspected of research fraud should be implemented at the national level in all countries (11)."
- "We agree with Magne Nylenna's assessment that it can be detrimental to exempt co-authors of fraudulent scientific papers completely from liability ( 17 )." ("Vi er enig i Magne Nylennas vurdering av at det kan være uheldig å frita medforfattere av uredelige vitenskapelige artikler helt for ansvar ( 17 )."
- Via reference "(17)" (excerpt above) Magne Nylenna introduced his article "Forskningsfusk i stort og smått" ("Research fraud in large and small") with the clever use of the classic W. C. Fields quote from the movie My Little Chickadee (1940) in which Fields starred with Mae West:
- "If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for." (Source: "Forskningsfusk i stort og smått" ("Research fraud in large and small") Nylenna M. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2006; 126: 2089.)
Back to 1999
In July 1999 Dr. Hutchon submitted his manuscript to UOG: "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Dr. Hutchon's manuscript presented his idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) in greater detail, depth and communication of benefits than his Hutchon 1998, published 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net. The receipt of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript was acknowledged by Trish Chudleigh, Ultrasound Editor of UOG in her letter to Dr. Hutchon dated 13.07.1999 which included the assigned UOG manuscript code "UOG 99/155." Additionally, Trish Cudleigh’s letter stated, "Your paper will be sent out to referees shortly..." However, someone at UOG put a still-unexplained, 115-day hold on Dr. Hutchon's manuscript before it was finally sent out to referees for review on 05 November 1999 to 3 UOG referees identified by their Editors' Codes: 28, 210 & 504. All 3 referees' reviews were eventually returned to UOG 88-days later on 02.01.2000, which was 203-days after Dr. Hutchon's manuscript UOG 99/155 had been received by UOG, which begs the question: Who or what delayed sending UOG 99/155 to referees' review for 115 days and who or what delayed UOG 99/155 during referees' review for 88 days, or, more simply, why did all this take 203 days? Interestingly, the number of words in each of the 3 referees' reviews varried, widely, with a word-count mean of 885 and standard deviation of 748. Other text analyses were performed on the 3 referees' reviews, and while their results are decidedly informative, they - do not explain the 88-day delay, almost 3 months.
It is interesting to note the following:
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was the founder and remains head of NCFM eSnurra Group and 1 of 3 NCFM eSnurra Group "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was involved in the NCFM eSnurra Group collaboration that resulted in Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, which appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was the lead author of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 publication (S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. Blaas, P. Grøttum, H. Gjessing): "OC20.01 Predicting remaining time of pregnancy – a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery" presented at the 15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, published 08.09.2005 by UOG. Eik-Nes et al. 2005 had appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), thus initiating NCFM eSnurra Group's 12-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism. The phrase "a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery" in the title of Eik-Nes et al. 2005 contradicted the well-documented, incontrovertible fact Dr. Hutchon's Hutchon 1998, website and his other publications had been published 7-years (or more precisely, 2,608 days) earlier. Moreover, Dr. Hutchon had submitted his second, more robust manuscript of the Hutchon Method of PDEE to UOG, when Stural H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG (1998-2002), entitled "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" 6-years (or more precisely, 2,249 days) before Eik-Nes et al. 2005 was published on 08.09.2005 by UOG.
- NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 was published 6-years after Dr. Hutchon submitted his manuscript "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" to UGO and, 686-days before Dr. Hutchon sent his first registered letter to UOG seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Dr. Hutchon had not been aware of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005, published 08.09.2005 by UOG.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was a coauthor of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, published 08.06.2007 by UOG; a paper which appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE as NCFM eSnurra Group's own original idea and method and, thereby engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism that continues today.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was a UOG Editor and a UOG Referee.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was the 1998 recipient of UOG's prestigious Ian Donald Gold Medal.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was himself a victim of plagiarism as a coauthor of H. G. Blaas' publications which were plagiarized in the case of UOG Editorial Board Member Asim Kurjak when Strula H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG.
- Both Sturla H. Eik-Nes and H. G. Blaas were co-victims of plagiarism; however, they, along with fellow NCFM eSnurra Group members P. Grøttum and H. Gjessing, collectively appropriated Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 presented at the 15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology and published 08.09.2005 by UOG.
- NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG, claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, as their own original idea and method, thereby engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism that continues today. The authors of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 included H. K. Gessing, P. Grøttum and Sturla H. Eik-Nes, all 3 claim to be the "copyright owners" (© 2007 Eik-Nes, Grøttum og Gjessing) of the NCFM eSnurra method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE.)
- Since NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, there have been xxxxx publications which have appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. See yyyyy for a list of these publications.
It strains credulity Sturla H. Eik-Nes was not aware of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript submission in 1999 given the fact:
- Dr. Hutchon's manuscript describing the Hutchon Method of PDEE introduced a completely new ultrasound-based method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, the first new method in fetal biometry in 30-years, the first since Campbell 1969, Stuart Campbell's idea and method, the Campbell Method GA Estimation (GA then termed fetal maturity) using BPD (Source: "THE PREDICTION OF FETAL MATURITY BY ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF THE BIPARIETAL DIAMETER" Campbel, S. BJOG Volume 76, Issue 7, July 1969 Pages 603–609).
- The novelty of Dr. Hutchon's Method of PDEE was confirmed by the UOG referees' reviews of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes' research focus was GA estimation, with NCFM Snurra Group the exclusive provider of the Norwegian national healthcare system to estimate GA and, therefrom, calculate EDD, using the equivalent of Naegele's rule for all pregnancies in Norway.
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes' was the leader of the NCFM Snurra Group which estimated GA and, therefrom, calculated EDD for all pregnancies in Norway for Norway's national healthcare system,
- NCFM Snurra Group made a complete change of focus from direct GA estimation (Campbell 1969) to direct EDD estimation (Hutchon 1998) in the conclusion of Tunón et al. 2000, the published version of Tunon et al. Paper V (p. 13) of Katarina Tunon's 1999 NTNU PhD Thesis. Paper V, coauthored by Sturla H. Eik-Nes who also supervised Tunon's 1999 NTNU PhD Thesis. Tunon et al. Paper V was published (Tunón et al. 2000) as: "Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter" which presented a radically different conclusion than the conclusion in the original Tunon et al. Paper V (p. 13):
- Before Publication: Discussion Conclusion: Tunón et al. Paper V (p. 13) Tunon's 1999 NTNU PhD Thesis
"In spite of the fact that IVF pregnancies are achieved through intervention, the high agreement between the gestational age calculated from the time of IVF and from the early CRL measurements in the same pregnancies, the high agreement between gestational age calculated from the time of IVF and BPD supports the use of ultrasound as a reliable method for estimation of gestational age." - After Publication: Discussion Conclusion: Tunón et al. 2000 (p. 45)
"In spite of the fact that IVF pregnancies are achieved through intervention, the high agreement between the gestational age calculated from the time of IVF and from the early CRL measurements in the same pregnancies, the high agreement between gestational age calculated from the time of IVF and BPD supports the use of ultrasound as a reliable method for estimation of day of delivery both in normally conceived pregnancies and IVF pregnancies."
- Before Publication: Discussion Conclusion: Tunón et al. Paper V (p. 13) Tunon's 1999 NTNU PhD Thesis
- However, at the time, while NCFM Snurra Group had the capability to estimate GA via the Campbell Method of GA Estimation (Campbell 1969), it was not possible for NCFM Snurra Group to estimate EDD because NCFM Snurra Group did not have the method, data or models to estimate EDD until after theymappropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) (Hutchon 1998), which had been published 19.07.1998, 2-years before Tunón et al. 2000 had been published. However, publication of the Hutchon Method of PDEE was decidedly fortuitous timing for NCFM Snurra Group given their new focus on EDD estimation, as presented loudly and clearly in the conclusion change in Tunón et al. 2000. Also, the logic of using an ultrasound-based estimate of GA to determine the IVF date (IVFD) of an IVF pregnancy (IVFD is the definition of GA) in order to calculate an EDD using the equivalent of Naegele's rule for an IVF pregnancy was neither a science- nor logic-based conclusion, nor was this conclusion supported by the data in Tunón et al. 2000. Using an ultrasound estimate of GA for an IVF pregnancy to calculate an EDD for an IVF pregnancy was a spurious, agenda-driven conclusion which, apparently, had no problem making it through UOG's referees' review process for publication by UOG, which begs the question: How was that possible? (Source: "Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitrofertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyteretrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter" K. TUNON, S.H. EIK-NES, P. GRØTTUM, V. VON DU¨RING and J.A. KAHN. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 41–46,. p 45)
- Sturla H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG at the time Tunón et al. 2000 had been submitted to, and published by, UOG.
Regarding Plagiarism, Reviewers, Editors & Publishers
- Publishing Ethics: Quality of Research Literature"
Abstract
"Publication ethics in science: To ensure quality of research literature
Scientific advances are almost never the result of a single article or the work of an individual researcher. Scientific progress is the result of many researchers working for a long time, through trial and error, studying of research literature and discussions with colleagues. Together, researchers and journals build the scientific knowledge base, and together they build upon it. This cooperation is the strength of science, but also its vulnerability. When all build on each other’s work, we are dependent on all building blocks of the edifice being solid, otherwise it could all collapse. The quality of the research literature is entirely dependent on the quality and integrity of the research and the quality and integrity of the published article, good research ethics and good publishing ethics. Publication ethics is the set of common rules and standards editors – and eventually also publishers – have agreed to follow to ensure the quality of the scientific literature. How these rules and standards are developed, and how violations of these standards can be handled, is the topic of this article. The development of publishing ethical standards has not occurred in a vacuum. New technological possibilities and models for scientific publication has provided new opportunities and challenges. This is also discussed." (Source: "Vitenskapelig (u)redelighet" (Scientific (Dishonesty)Honesty) Torkild Vinther, Vidar Enebakk & Jacob C. Hølen 2016, Chapter 7: Scientific Publishing Ethics: To Ensure the Quality of Research Literature. Charlotte J. Haug, Senior Scientist at SINTEF Technology and Society, Department of Health)
- Plagiarism of ideas
"Even if an author does not copy any words and phrases from the original article, if he simply uses the same idea, thought, or invention and presents it as his own without proper acknowledgment, the same may amount to plagiarism. This kind of plagiarism is difficult to detect[10] but once detected, it is as serious an offence.
When can plagiarism of an idea occur? Here are a few examples that come to mind. It is possible that after a particular article has been rejected by a board of reviewers, one of the reviewers may “kidnap” the idea, write a fresh article, and get it published in a different journal under his name. This is plagiarism of idea." (Source: "Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers?" Natasha Das and Monica Panjabi. Perspect Clin Resv.2(2); Apr-Jun 2011 PMC3121267. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.80370)
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. (Source: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals Updated December 2016" http://www.icmje.org/ & http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf, resectively)
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends detailed procedures for editors regarding scientific misconduct (i.e., data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism).
- "When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by such committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures." (Source: "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals" Section III. Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Medical Journals B Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction p. 8. Updated December 2016. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, www.icmje.org))
- "Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal—the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations." (Source: "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" Date of Publication: June 22, 2015. The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME, www.wame.org))
- Plagiarism
"Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic)." (Source: "Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals" The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME, www.wame.org)) - "Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution." (Source: ibid.)
One would think lessons learned from UOG & ISUOG's 2002 private-wrist-slaps handling of UOG Editorial Board Member Asim Kurjak's case of plagiarism would have had some effect on UOG & ISUOG's professional and ethical responsibilities to the public and the public trust with respect to their handling of Dr. Hutchon's 4 separate, formal communication attempts seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Unfortunately, UOG & ISUOG completely failed all parties, including themselves, but especially the public and the public trust. There were, and continue to be, real-world consequences among the public due to UOG & ISUOG's uninvestigated, uncontested and conscious indifference to the consequences of the plagiarism reported by Dr. Hutchon; consequences which caused, and continue to cause, increased medical risks and grievous medical harms to some of the public, specifically, some of Norway's women and their babies who are among the most vulnerable to breaches of the public trust.
To conclude, and with respect to Dr. Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Dr. Yves Ville, UOG & ISUOG, everyone knew, or reasonably should have known, what they were doing, and what they were not doing, were unethical, unprofessional and flat-out wrong. Moreover, the conscious indifference to the consequences of the plagiarism reported by Dr. Hutchon was, and will remain, an ethical and professional breach and, an egregious breach of the public trust that caused, and causes, increased medical risks, medical mistakes and grievous medical harms.
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts.”
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")
(Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999).
(Source: U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): "Acknowledging the Source of Our Ideas")