The world-renowned concussion skilled Dr Paul McCrory has been accused of 10 extra instances of plagiarism, prompting specialists to query how a lot unique analysis the neurologist has produced and whether or not he deserved the a whole lot of 1000’s of {dollars} in analysis grants he has acquired.
McCrory stood down as chair of the influential Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) in March after the British Journal of Sports Medicine retracted considered one of his 2005 editorials, citing an “illegal and indefensible breach of copyright” of the work of Prof Steve Haake.
On the time McCrory was quoted apologising on Retraction Watch, saying his failure to attribute Haake’s work was an error and “not deliberate or intentional”.
That month Guardian Australia reported further plagiarism allegations against McCrory, an honorary affiliate with the distinguished Florey Institute for medical analysis in Melbourne. McCrory didn’t reply to requests for remark on the time.
Now, Nick Brown, an information analyst at Linnaeus College in Sweden, alleges he has discovered an extra 10 examples of plagiarism by McCrory, together with failing to attribute materials taken from his personal beforehand printed work.
“Dr McCrory has been churning out very related tales for 20 years, whereas, so far as I’ve been capable of set up, performing little or no unique empirical or different analysis in that point,” Brown mentioned.
“When you’re saying precisely the identical factor about this subject as you probably did a decade in the past, what sort of analysis are you doing?”
The brand new plagiarism allegations contain works printed between 2001 and 2018. Brown says usually McCrory seems to have recycled as much as 90% of his personal beforehand printed work for publication elsewhere with out attribution, together with within the British Journal of Sports activities Medication, which he as soon as edited.
In a single case, Brown alleges McCrory included the work of a Washington Submit journalist, with out attribution, for a chapter he contributed to a guide on restoration from sports activities concussions. In one other alleged instance, in a paper he authored on mind swelling after head damage, McCrory seems to have copied chunks of textual content with out attribution from a guide on traumatic mind damage in youngsters and adolescents.
In lots of the instances, Brown says McCrory seems to have taken chunks of labor from his earlier papers and mixed that work to kind a brand new paper or a guide chapter. Not one of the items include new, unique scientific analysis.
Having a historical past of ceaselessly publishing papers is vital to researchers and teachers securing funding and grants for additional analysis, and to constructing their repute.
The neurophysiologist Dr Alan Pearce, an affiliate professor at La Trobe College, mentioned this makes self-plagiarism unethical in academia as it might give the impression a researcher is persistently producing new work.
“There’s no excuse for any type of plagiarism, together with self-plagiarism,” he mentioned.
“It’s nonetheless dishonest and unethical.”
He mentioned analysis funding, each authorities and philanthropic, “really doesn’t place sufficient worth on what’s produced – for instance, unique analysis papers – however moderately they place worth on a researcher’s observe file of profitable grants”.
“So somebody who has received tens of millions of {dollars} in, significantly, NHMRC [National Health and Medical Research Council] or Australian Analysis Council grants will probably be deemed as having a greater observe file than somebody who has printed dozens of unique analysis research, however hasn’t received many grants.”
Pearce mentioned the dearth of funding for unique analysis sports-related head accidents, and concussion coverage pointers being influenced by a well-connected community of some individuals together with McCrory, meant new developments have been sluggish. He believes funding our bodies ought to be working more durable to make sure cash is getting used on unique analysis on this area.
“Within the case of concussion, there are individuals actually dying as a result of nobody is ready to assist and the analysis strikes so slowly,” he mentioned.
Dr Chris Nowinski, the chief govt and founding father of the Concussion Legacy Basis within the US, has beforehand accused McCrory of misinterpreting and misrepresenting Boston University brain injury research and downplaying the prevalence of continual traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) within the brains of retired athletes.
Nowinski mentioned US sporting codes, to enhance concussion protocols, have sought illustration from specialists named by gamers associations or participant advocates, not simply group docs. He’s pushing for related motion in Australia.
“You want a public well being voice that recognises that no matter occurs within the [professional leagues] will affect what occurs to youngsters, and the protocols and messages should be aligned to guard each teams,” he mentioned.
In March, the AFL introduced a complete and unbiased evaluate of the work of McCrory, who for years handled and identified AFL gamers and offered concussion recommendation to the league.
The AFL on the time mentioned the review would be undertaken because of the plagiarism allegations and after the league was unable to reply questions on concussion analysis McCrory was mentioned to have led for the governing physique, together with how gamers have been recruited for the research and the proof McCrory used to tell insurance policies. The evaluate is ongoing.
Individually, the Guardian revealed that in Could 2018 McCrory voluntarily “offered an enforceable endeavor to the Medical Board of Australia that he won’t carry out neurodiagnostic procedures, nerve conduction research, or electromyography till authorised to take action by the Board”. The AFL was not conscious of this till knowledgeable of the endeavor by Guardian Australia. McCrory didn’t reply to requests for remark.
Guardian Australia evaluation reveals that McCrory has instantly acquired no less than $1,530,552 in 4 publicly funded particular person grants and fellowships via the NHMRC. He has additionally been named as an investigator on three additional group tasks that acquired public funding.
Evaluation of McCrory’s publishing historical past reveals little proof of unique analysis into concussion and head trauma. Guardian Australia might establish no peer reviewed publications regarding scientific research or randomised managed trials led by McCrory regarding concussion in sport. McCrory didn’t reply to questions on this.
Within the early 2000s, McCrory was named as an affiliate investigator on a challenge wanting on the cognitive and behavioural outcomes of concussion in younger youngsters, run by Prof Vicki Anderson on the Murdoch Youngsters’s Analysis Institute.
Anderson mentioned McCrory had no function within the assortment or scoring of the info, nor did he carry out any knowledge entry or evaluation for the challenge, and acquired no revenue from the grant. Neither Anderson nor McCrory responded to additional questions on what McCrory’s function within the research.
McCrory can also be named as an investigator on a 2017-2019 challenge carried out out of the Florey Institute, which acquired $1,102,245.74 via the NHMRC, finding out the buildup of CTE-linked proteins within the mind and the mind perform of concussed people a number of many years after head damage.
Prof Christopher Rowe, the chief investigator on that challenge, didn’t reply to questions on McCrory’s involvement within the challenge or any printed peer-reviewed analysis that resulted from it. McCrory didn’t reply to requests for touch upon this grant both however there isn’t any suggestion that he benefited personally from it.
McCrory was additionally named because the lead investigator on a randomised managed trial that studied the impact of acupuncture on knee ache in 2008 that acquired $701,120.13 in public funds. A paper itemizing McCrory as a co-author was printed out of this analysis, and it has no connection to concussion.
This raises questions round how McCrory was capable of safe a whole lot of 1000’s of {dollars} in funding for concussion analysis when a few of his solely unique scientific analysis seems to be within the space of acupuncture.
The latest grant to McCrory is a $577,188.50 Medical Analysis Future Fund (MRFF) Subsequent Era Medical Researchers grant, which was awarded in 2017 and introduced in a press launch by the previous well being minister Greg Hunt. It is because of be acquitted in 2023.
The funding is for use to look at the long-term results of delicate traumatic mind damage and “shut the present information hole of the influence of this dysfunction on people,” the press launch from Hunt on the time mentioned.
Well being division ‘involved’ about allegations
A spokesperson from the Division of Well being and Aged Care mentioned “the division is conscious of and anxious in regards to the allegations [of plagiarism] made about McCrory”.
“The division has been suggested that the accountable establishment is investigating the allegations and can present recommendation on the outcomes.
“As soon as acquired, the division will think about any actions which may be required in response to the outcomes of the investigation. It could be inappropriate to touch upon these issues forward of receiving recommendation from the establishment.”
A Florey Institute spokesperson mentioned: “The MRFF Subsequent Era Medical Researcher Program is an ongoing five-year Fellowship undertaken by Dr Paul McCrory that is because of finish on 31 December 2022. Grant-related obligations for reporting and acquittals regarding the Fellowship have been met, together with the submission of annual monetary expenditure studies.
“A abstract of the finished challenge outcomes and papers printed will probably be included within the closing challenge report.”
The institute didn’t reply to questions in regards to the scope of the challenge or how contributors for research have been being recruited.
Subsequent Era Medical Researcher Program grants are fellowships, solely for the salaries of recipients.
A spokesperson from the NHMRC mentioned all monetary studies for the opposite grants had been submitted as required and reviewed and accepted by NHMRC.
“Analysis funding grants are awarded primarily based on rigorous, aggressive peer evaluate with the unbiased peer reviewers assessing purposes towards evaluation standards that are described within the related scheme pointers,” the spokesperson mentioned.
Have you learnt extra? Contact [email protected]
