Literature DB >> 22942373

Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings.

David B Resnik1, Gregg E Dinse.   

Abstract

We examined all 208 closed cases involving official findings of research misconduct published by the US Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 to determine how often scientists mention in a retraction or correction notice that there was an ethical problem with an associated article. 75 of these cases cited at least one published article affected by misconduct for a total of 174 articles. For 127 of these 174, we found both the article and a retraction or correction statement. Since eight of the 127 published statements consisted of simply the word 'retracted,' our analysis focused on the remaining 119 for which a more detailed retraction or correction was published. Of these 119 statements, only 41.2% mentioned ethics at all (and only 32.8% named a specific ethical problem such as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), whereas the other 58.8% described the reason for retraction or correction as error, loss of data or replication failure when misconduct was actually at issue. Among the published statements in response to an official finding of misconduct (within the time frame studied), the proportion that mentioned ethics was significantly higher in recent years than in earlier years, as was the proportion that named a specific problem. To promote research integrity, scientific journals should consider adopting policies concerning retractions and corrections similar to the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Funding agencies and institutions should take steps to ensure that articles affected by misconduct are retracted or corrected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22942373      PMCID: PMC3525741          DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100766

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


  7 in total

1.  Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine.

Authors:  J M Budd; M Sievert; T R Schultz; C Scoville
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1999-10

Review 2.  Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals.

Authors:  Michel C Atlas
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

3.  Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.

Authors:  Richard Van Noorden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

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

Authors:  R Grant Steen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?

Authors:  Larry D Claxton
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?

Authors:  Sara B Nath; Steven C Marcus; Benjamin G Druss
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 7.738

7.  Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Daniel Patrone; Shyamal Peddada
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.622

  7 in total
  16 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Making the scientific literature fail-safe.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities.

Authors:  Erisa S Mwaka
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 0.927

5.  Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action.

Authors:  Paul S Brookes
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.

Authors:  Caroline Lievore; Priscila Rubbo; Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos; Claudia Tânia Picinin; Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2021-05-23       Impact factor: 3.238

9.  Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.

Authors:  Xavier Bosch; Cristina Hernández; Juan M Pericas; Pamela Doti; Ana Marušić
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Overflow in science and its implications for trust.

Authors:  Sabina Siebert; Laura M Machesky; Robert H Insall
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.