Coping with scientific misconduct.

author (which had been accepted but not yet published) that also seemed to be plagiarised. However, the author’s hospital did not respond. In another of the four cases (09-11), an editor had concerns about the ethics of a trial of a homoeopathic treatment for HIV/AIDS. The editor was concerned that patients may have been denied effective antiretroviral treatment and wanted clarification about how patient consent was obtained. The authors claimed the study had been approved by an ethics committee and by their country’s ministry of health but that this approval was verbal, so they could not supply documentation. The editor contacted the author’s institution, the ethics committee, and the ministry of health but received no response.