Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘grant steen’ Category

“Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study

with 19 comments

elifeHow much money does scientific fraud waste?

That’s an important question, with an answer that may help determine how much attention some people pay to research misconduct. But it’s one that hasn’t been rigorously addressed.

Seeking some clarity,  Andrew Stern, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang looked at cases in which the Office of Research Integrity had determined there was misconduct in particular papers. In their study, published today in eLife: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 14th, 2014 at 11:46 am

“Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study

with 9 comments

faseb june 2014One of the complaints we often hear about the self-correcting nature of science is that authors and editors seem very reluctant to retract papers with obvious fatal flaws. Indeed, it seems fairly clear that the number of papers retracted is smaller than the number of those that should be.

To try to get a sense of how errors are corrected in the literature, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang, whose work on retractions will be familiar to our readers, in a new paper in the FASEB Journal, look at the sources of error in papers retracted for reasons other than misconduct.

Here’s the abstract (emphasis ours): Read the rest of this entry »

Journal to feature special issue on scientific misconduct, seeks submissions

with 31 comments


Grant Steen

It would be difficult to read the recent scientific literature on retractions and miss Grant Steen’s contributions. Retraction Watch readers are no doubt familiar with his work by this point, and if they’re not, we’d recommend spending some time with it. The journal Publications — an MDPI title — has asked him to guest-edit a special issue on scientific misconduct, and Steen asked us to get the word out, so we’re happy to post this introduction from him: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 22nd, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Posted in grant steen,mdpi

“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

with 28 comments

plos oneThe title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and separately, they’ve examined retraction trends in a number of papers we’ve covered.

Their new paper tries to answer a question we’re almost always asked as a follow-up to data showing the number of retractions grew ten-fold over the first decade in the 21st century. As the authors write: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

July 11th, 2013 at 10:00 am

Have you been involved in scientific fraud? Grant Steen wants to hear from you

with 66 comments

Regular Retraction Watch readers may find the name Grant Steen familiar. Steen has published a number of important papers on retractions, most recently in PNAS. Recently, he approached us for help with what sounds like another project that is likely to increase our understanding of misconduct in science: Steen wants to gather the stories of those involved in fraud. We’re happy to present his explanation of the project, and his requests:


Grant Steen

Why is there fraud in science?

Scientists believe—or at least profess to believe—that science is a process of iteratively approaching Truth.  Failed experiments are supposed to serve as fodder for successful experiments, so that clouded thinking can be clarified.  Observations that are fundamentally true are thought to find support, while observations that are flawed in some way are supplanted by better observations.

Why then would anyone think that scientific fraud can succeed?  Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 29th, 2013 at 11:00 am

Posted in grant steen

Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

with 25 comments

A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously thought, thanks to unhelpful retraction notices that cause us to beat our heads against the wall here at Retraction Watch.

The study of 2,047 retractions in biomedical and life-science research articles in PubMed from 1973 until May 3, 2012 brings together three retraction researchers whose names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers: Ferric Fang, Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. Fang and Casadevall have published together, including on their Retraction Index, but this is the first paper by the trio.

The paper is Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 1st, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Does anesthesiology have a problem? Final version of report suggests Fujii will take retraction record, with 172

with 7 comments

Japanese investigators have concluded that Yoshitaka Fujii, an expert in postoperative nausea and vomiting whose findings drew scrutiny in 2000 but who continued to publish prolifically for a decade after, fabricated his results in at least 172 published studies.

That number nearly doubles that of the current unofficial retraction record holder, Joachim Boldt.

An inquiry by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA) has determined that Fujii, who was fired in February from his post at Toho University, falsified data in 172 of 212 papers published between 1993 and 2011. Investigators said they found no evidence of fraud in three of the papers, but could not determine whether the results reported in the remaining 37 were reliable.

Of the 172 bogus studies, 126 involved randomized controlled trials. Investigators believe this was not a coincidence: Read the rest of this entry »

No academic matter: Study links retractions to patient harm

without comments

Flawed research that leads to retractions is a problem for editors, publishers and the scientific community. But what about patients?

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, R. Grant Steen asks the question — and answers it in the affirmative.

We’ve heard from Steen before; he has written two recent papers on the scope of retractions, finding that the number of retractions seems to be rising faster than the number of publications on the shelves.

This time, Steen takes a crack at ferreting out what he calls “harm by influence,” the admittedly subtle effect that troubled studies have on downstream research. His findings certainly raise concerns. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

June 13th, 2011 at 9:36 am

Is scientific fraud on the rise?

with 9 comments

As readers of this blog have no doubt sensed by now, the number of retractions per year seems to be on the rise. We feel that intuitively as we uncover more and more of them, but there are also data to suggest this is true.

As if to demonstrate that, we’ve been trying to find time to write this post for more than a week, since the author of the study we’ll discuss sent us his paper. Writing about all the retractions we learned about, however, kept us too busy.

But given how sharp Retraction Watch readers are, you will be quick to note that more retractions doesn’t necessarily mean a higher rate. After all, there were about 527,000 papers published in 2000, and 852,000 published in 2009, so a constant rate of retractions would still mean a higher number. Here’s what Grant Steen, who published a paper on retractions and fraud last month in the Journal of Medical Ethics, found when he ran those numbers: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 13th, 2011 at 9:30 am

So how many retractions are there every year, anyway?

with 6 comments

The title of this post is a question that we’ve been asking ourselves since we started Retraction Watch in August, and that others have asked us since. And we’ve gotten different answers depending where we look:

So the real number is a) probably somewhere between 30 and 95 and b) increasing — which isn’t as precise as we’d like, but is hardly the fault of the various people who’ve tried valiantly to count.

Well, we may be a step closer to precision, sort of. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

November 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am