An Investigation of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature

A major challenge to formal scientific communication is the retraction of published works. This study includes a detailed analysis of retracted articles in biomedical literature, including categorization of the reasons for retraction. The examination covers the years 2010-2014. Analysis also includes citations to articles retraction between 2001 and 2005. The totality of the investigation is couched within the context of communication in the biomedical sciences and, to a lesser extent, of the formulation of theories of citation

Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: a reassessment

The motivation for this Special Issue is increasing concern not only with academic misconduct but also with less easily defined forms of misrepresentation and gaming. In an era of intense emphasis on measuring academic performance, there has been a proliferation of scandals, questionable behaviors and devious stratagems involving not just individuals but also organizations, including universities, editors and reviewers, journal publishers, and conference organizers. This introduction first reviews the literature on the prevalence of academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming (MMG). The core of the article is organized around a life-cycle model of the production and dissemination of research results. We synthesize the findings in the MMG literature at the level of the investigator or research team, emphasizing that misbehavior extends well beyond fabrication and falsification to include behaviors designed to exaggerate or to mislead readers as to the significance of research findings. MMG is next explored in the post-research review, publication, and post-publication realms. Moving from the individual researcher to the organizational level, we examine how MMG can be engaged in by either journals or organizations employing or funding the researchers. The changing institutional environment including the growth of research assessment exercises, increased quantitative output measurement and greater pressure to publish may all encourage MMG. In the final section, we summarize the main conclusions and offer suggestions both on how we might best address the problems and on topics for future research

An Assessment of Retractions as a Measure of Scientific Misconduct and Impact on Public Health Risks

Research misconduct has been generally considered a limited issue, occurring in a small percentage of research studies. Studies of the number of article retractions use retraction percentages to perpetuate the idea that research misconduct is not a common event, and use information in the retraction notice to quantify types of research misconduct and types or research error. However, retractions appear to be the wrong variable with which to assess misconduct rates and characteristics. Using final misconduct findings in hard science research from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for investigations closed from 1993 through 2013, the number of publications and subsequent retractions or corrections per final ORI finding was analyzed. Out of 167 subjects who received ORI sanctions, 84 (50.3%) had no publications associated with their misconduct. Of the remaining 83 subjects, only 72 had at least one retraction associated with their misconduct, i.e., only 43.1% of the all study subjects sanctioned for misconduct had at least one retraction from misconduct. Of the 231 retractions and corrections arising from the sanctioned misconduct, only 94 notices (40.6%) gave research misconduct as a cause for the retraction or correction. Thus, the study demonstrates that research misconduct occurs at a greater rate than retractions for misconduct are published, and retraction and correction notices cannot be relied upon to convey the presence of fraudulent data within the publication

An Assessment of Retractions as a Measure of Scientific Misconduct and Impact on Public Health Risks

Research misconduct has been generally considered a limited issue, occurring in a small percentage of research studies. Studies of the number of article retractions use retraction percentages to perpetuate the idea that research misconduct is not a common event, and use information in the retraction notice to quantify types of research misconduct and types or research error. However, retractions appear to be the wrong variable with which to assess misconduct rates and characteristics. Using final misconduct findings in hard science research from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for investigations closed from 1993 through 2013, the number of publications and subsequent retractions or corrections per final ORI finding was analyzed. Out of 167 subjects who received ORI sanctions, 84 (50.3%) had no publications associated with their misconduct. Of the remaining 83 subjects, only 72 had at least one retraction associated with their misconduct, i.e., only 43.1% of the all study subjects sanctioned for misconduct had at least one retraction from misconduct. Of the 231 retractions and corrections arising from the sanctioned misconduct, only 94 notices (40.6%) gave research misconduct as a cause for the retraction or correction. Thus, the study demonstrates that research misconduct occurs at a greater rate than retractions for misconduct are published, and retraction and correction notices cannot be relied upon to convey the presence of fraudulent data within the publication

An Investigation of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature

A major challenge to formal scientific communication is the retraction of published works. This study includes a detailed analysis of retracted articles in biomedical literature, including categorization of the reasons for retraction. The examination covers the years 2010-2014. Analysis also includes citations to articles retraction between 2001 and 2005. The totality of the investigation is couched within the context of communication in the biomedical sciences and, to a lesser extent, of the formulation of theories of citation