Literature DB >> 21186208

Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

R Grant Steen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.
METHODS: The reasons for retracting 742 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Reasons for retraction were initially dichotomised as fraud or error and then analysed to determine specific reasons for retraction.
RESULTS: Error was more common than fraud (73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% retracted for fraud). Eight reasons for retraction were identified; the most common reason was scientific mistake in 234 papers (31.5%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were retracted for ambiguous reasons. Fabrication (including data plagiarism) was more common than text plagiarism. Total papers retracted per year have increased sharply over the decade (r=0.96; p<0.001), as have retractions specifically for fraud (r=0.89; p<0.001). Journals now reach farther back in time to retract, both for fraud (r=0.87; p<0.001) and for scientific mistakes (r=0.95; p<0.001). Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader; 31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as retracted in any way.
CONCLUSIONS: Levels of misconduct appear to be higher than in the past. This may reflect either a real increase in the incidence of fraud or a greater effort on the part of journals to police the literature. However, research bias is rarely cited as a reason for retraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21186208     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.040923

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  74 in total

1.  Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases.

Authors:  Renan Moritz V R Almeida; Karina de Albuquerque Rocha; Fernanda Catelani; Aldo José Fontes-Pereira; Sonia M R Vasconcelos
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Elizabeth Wager; Grace E Kissling
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2015-07

4.  Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.

Authors:  Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti; Istvan S Szilagyi; Andreas Sandner-Kiesling
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Blogging on the sidelines.

Authors:  Michelle Francl
Journal:  Nat Chem       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 24.427

6.  Retracted science and the retraction index.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2011-08-08       Impact factor: 3.441

7.  Incidence of Data Duplications in a Randomly Selected Pool of Life Science Publications.

Authors:  Morten P Oksvold
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  The Need for Greater Rigor in Childhood Nutrition and Obesity Research.

Authors:  Alexis C Wood; Jonathan D Wren; David B Allison
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 16.193

9.  What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.

Authors:  Christian Hopp; Gary A Hoover
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  Stewardship of Integrity in Scientific Communication.

Authors:  Kurt H Albertine
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.