Category: studies about retractions

Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

bmcresnotesRetraction Watch readers may have noticed that we often cover retractions long before they appear in PubMed, the gold standard database for the life sciences literature. (In fact, we’ve taken to leaving comments on papers in PubMed Commons about retractions that haven’t been linked to their original abstracts yet.)

This can be an issue, because so many scientists use PubMed to find relevant literature. It may even contribute to the well-documented phenomenon of researchers citing retracted papers as if they hadn’t been retracted.

Until now, no one had quantified the time lag. In a new study, Evelynne Decullier, Laure Huot, and Hervé Maisonneuve — who have published on retractions before — looked at 237 retractions published in 2008. Their findings? Continue reading Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

How often do economists commit misconduct?

research policyWe haven’t covered that many retractions in economics, and a 2012 paper found very few such retractions. Now, a new study based on a survey of economists tries to get a handle on how often economists commit scientific misconduct.

Here’s the abstract of “Scientific misbehavior in economics,” which appeared in Research Policy: Continue reading How often do economists commit misconduct?

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

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

Which countries have the most retractions, for which reasons?

jmlaOne of the questions we often get — but are careful to answer with some version of “we don’t know because we don’t have a denominator” — is how retraction rates vary by scientific field and country. We’ve noticed that the reasons for retraction seem to vary among countries, but didn’t really have the data. A new paper in the Journal of the Medical Library Association by Kathleen Amos takes a good step toward figuring the country part out.

Amos looked at PubMed-indexed retractions from 2008 to 2012. Here’s what she found: Continue reading Which countries have the most retractions, for which reasons?

“Why Do We Still Have Journals?”

admin sci quarterlyThe title of this post is the title of a new commentary in Administrative Science Quarterly by Gerald Davis of the University of Michigan. Its abstract:
Continue reading “Why Do We Still Have Journals?”

Weekend reads: Self-plagiarism and moral panic; sexism in science; peer review under scrutiny

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch, which kicked off with our announcement that we’re hiring a paid intern. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Self-plagiarism and moral panic; sexism in science; peer review under scrutiny

Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year?

booksAnother very busy week at Retraction Watch. There were a lot of gems elsewhere. Here’s a sampling: Continue reading Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year?

How common is scientific misconduct in Nigeria?

nigeriaWe’ve only covered one retraction from Nigeria. But as we’ve often noted, retraction rates don’t necessarily correlate with rates of problematic research, so the low number doesn’t really answer the question in this post’s title.

Lucky for us, a group of authors have started publishing surveys of Nigerian scientists on the subject. In a new such survey published in BMC Medical Ethics, Patrick I. Okonta and Theresa Rossouw asked 150 researchers to fill out a questionnaire during a scientific conference in 2010. Most of them — 133 — complied. Their findings? Continue reading How common is scientific misconduct in Nigeria?

Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

booksAnother super-busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening in around the web in scientific publishing, misconduct, and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?