Category: studies about retractions

And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Photo by didbygraham via Flickr

We’ve had a few unofficial record-holders here at Retraction Watch. The current leader in the retraction column, for example, is Yoshitaka Fujii, who will likely retract 172 papers. He took that record from Joachim Boldt, with just shy of 90.

Today, we’ll take a stab at another record, longest time between publication and retraction. The apparent record holders, at 25 years, are I.E. Swift and V. E. Milborrow, who were at the University of New South Wales in Australia when they published “Retention of the 4-pro-R hydrogen atom of mevalonate at C-2,2′ of bacterioruberin in Halobacterium halobium” in the Biochemical Journal in 1980. Here’s the retraction notice from 2005 (hat tip Jeffrey Furman and colleagues, who noted the retraction in a paper earlier this year): Continue reading And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers

Researchers often like to complain that science journalists puff up their results to sell newspapers. And there’s no question that reporters make missteps. But a commentary published today in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine brings to mind the old saying about those who live in glass houses not casting the first stones.

In a piece called “Spin and Boasting in Research Articles,” Peter Cummings and Frederick Rivara, two University of Washington faculty members, write: Continue reading Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers

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

Does focusing on wrongdoing in research feed mistrust of science?

There have been a number of thoughtful stories and opinion pieces on scientific fraud recently. There was Brian Deer in the Sunday Times of London last month. Paul Jump, at the Times Higher Education, later that month looked at the lessons of one particular case. Alok Jha, of the Guardian, took on the issue last week.

Yesterday, in a Knight Science Journalism Tracker post on a symposium on communicating science with integrity, Deborah Blum suggested science writers “need to be increasingly aware – and wary – of these issues in academic publishing,” while noting that they are a “minority report.” (And thanks to all of those pieces for the mentions and kind words about Retraction Watch.)

Some scientists, of course, agree, if the steady deluge of tips we get from working researchers is any indication. “We must be open about our mistakes,” wrote Jim Woodgett, of the Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, in Nature earlier this month.

But not everyone thinks highlighting misconduct is such a good idea, Continue reading Does focusing on wrongdoing in research feed mistrust of science?

Surprise, surprise: Study says retraction notices often aren’t honest about misconduct

A paper published online the other day in the Journal of Medical Ethics puts some numbers on an issue near and dear to Retraction Watch: How transparent are retraction notices when it comes to misconduct?

David Resnik and Gregg Dinse, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, looked at the 208 cases closed by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 that involved “official findings of research misconduct.” As they note: Continue reading Surprise, surprise: Study says retraction notices often aren’t honest about misconduct

What happens to copies of retracted papers on non-publisher websites (eg PubMed Central)?

One of the important questions when it comes to retractions is, what happens to retracted papers? How do readers find out they’re retracted? There’s evidence they are cited less often, but that when they are cited, the vast majority of the time it’s as if they were never retracted.

So with all of that in mind, Phil Davis, an independent researcher and publishing consultant, set out to find Continue reading What happens to copies of retracted papers on non-publisher websites (eg PubMed Central)?

Happy second anniversary, Retraction Watch: Plus, our plans for year three

We didn’t plan it this way, but our second anniversary gift came a few days early this week, when we learned that a retraction notice had cited us. Given that the traditional second anniversary gift is cotton, and we’re really not sure what to do with that information, we’re much happier — and humbled — by the mention.

Two years ago today, we launched Retraction Watch. When we looked back at year one, we had written more than 250 posts; that number is up to more than 600. We had a new record-holder in our first year, Joachim Boldt, with 88 retractions; we now have a new one, Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 likely. This July, we crossed the three million-pageview threshold, and also saw our first 300,000-pageview month.

But numbers don’t always tell the whole story, Continue reading Happy second anniversary, Retraction Watch: Plus, our plans for year three

Brazil statement urges culture of research integrity

As its research institutions grow and mature, the Brazilian scientific establishment is hoping its scientists encourage research integrity and responsible conduct of research.

In late May, Ivan was invited to Brazil to take part in the Second Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics(II BRISPE). Organized by the Medical Biochemistry Institute (IBqM/UFRJ) & Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering (COPPE/UFRJ), the meeting traveled from Rio de Janeiro to São Paulo to Porto Alegre over the course of several days.

One of the goals of the whirlwind meeting, which brought together researchers, administrators, funding agencies, and experts in scientific integrity from around the world, was to produce a Joint Statement on Scientific Integrity. That statement, into which Ivan had input, has now been published, so we thought we’d post links to it in English, Portuguese, and Spanish and check in with Sonia Maria Ramos Vasconcelos, one of the organizers of the meeting. Continue reading Brazil statement urges culture of research integrity

How can institutions prevent scientific misconduct?

There has been plenty of interest in scientific fraud and misconduct lately — and not just on Retraction Watch — from major news outlets and government agencies, among other parties. The rate of retractions is increasing, and some fraudsters are even setting new records. That has focused attention on how institutions can prevent misconduct — not something anyone thinks is easy to do.

To try to figure it out, Columbia University’s Donald Kornfeld decided to review 146 U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) cases from 1992 to 2003, “based on 50 years of clinical experience in psychiatry and 19 years as the chairman of two institutional review boards.” (Of note, these only represent cases in which ORI concluded there was misconduct, as the agency doesn’t report on negative cases.) Here’s what he found, reported last month in Academic Medicine: Continue reading How can institutions prevent scientific misconduct?

When is it acceptable to use some of the same data in separate papers?

Photo by Sean Davis via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/seandavis/

Duplication — sometimes referred to “self-plagiarism,” with a lack of precision — is a frequent cause of retractions. Usually, it’s of text that authors have used elsewhere. But what about data? In our new LabTimes column, we describe a hypothetical situation: Continue reading When is it acceptable to use some of the same data in separate papers?