Archive for the ‘grant steen’ Category
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 »
The 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 »
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:
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 »
Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record
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 »
Does anesthesiology have a problem? Final version of report suggests Fujii will take retraction record, with 172
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 »
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 »
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 »
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:
- In our first post, we cited a study that found 328 retractions in Medline in the decade from 1995 to 2004.
- A study by Elizabeth Wager and Peter Williams, which we cited in an early post, found 529 between 1988 and 2008.
- A 2009 analysis by Thomson Scientific, at the request of Times Higher Education, found 95 in 2008.
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 »