Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
I'm curious if this study is even legit or are they skewing the percentages!
USA top the list for fraud,then Germany,Japan,China,UK,India,Korea.
Abstract
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
"This finding is attributable to the discovery of multiple fraudulent articles during the course of investigation of a single instance of fraud. For example, the retraction of a 2010 Blood article by Sawada et al. (14) was followed in rapid succession by the retraction of 30 additional articles originating from the laboratory of Naoki Mori".
"Citation of Retracted Articles.
Previous investigators have found that many retracted articles continue to be cited as if still valid work (15, 16), but others have documented an immediate effect of retraction on citation frequency (17). Although we did not examine this question comprehensively, we found considerable variation among the most frequently cited retracted articles (Table 3). Some retracted articles exhibited a rapid and sustained decline in citations following retraction, but others have continued to be cited (Fig. S3)."
"As the consideration of secondary sources led to changes in the perceived cause of retraction in 158 instances (Table S1), we conclude that for many retractions, the retraction notice is insufficient to ascertain the true cause of retraction".
"We further note that not all articles suspected of fraud have been retracted. The Lancet and British Medical Journal expressed serious reservations about the validity of the Indo-Mediterranean Diet Heart Study after the primary author was unable to present original records to document ethics review and informed consent (18, 19), yet the original articles have not been retracted (20, 21). Several articles authored by Mark Spector when he was working in the laboratory of Efraim Racker remain in the literature (22, 23), despite documentation that Spector committed data fabrication (24). R. K. Chandra was found to have committed fraud in the performance of clinical trials, but only a single article was retracted (25), even though considerable evidence was obtained to suggest that other publications were also fraudulent (26). Therefore, the current number of articles retracted because of fraud represents an underestimation of the actual number of fraudulent articles in the literature".
"Although some retraction announcements are specific and detailed, many are uninformative or opaque. In 119 instances, no information regarding the reason for retraction was provided by the journal. Announcements are often written by the authors of the retracted article themselves (27), who may be understandably reluctant to implicate themselves in misconduct".
The authors of a study on research fraud feel it's "understandable" the author of fraudulent work wouldn't want to implicate themselves! Or perhaps it's psychotic......
"36). A 2005 Science article by Fukuhara et al. continues to be cited even though both the HTML and PDF versions are clearly marked as retracted, and the PDF version includes a copy of the retraction notice (37). Many scientists continue to cite the article by Fukuhara et al. for its initial identification of visfatin as an adipocytokine, even though the article was retracted because of concerns about the cytokine’s reported insulin mimetic properties (38). This practice suggests that under certain circumstances, scientists continue to find utility in retracted articles, particularly those retracted because of error, and supports a policy of continued access to retracted articles as long as detailed descriptions regarding the reasons for retraction are provided."
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
USA top the list for fraud,then Germany,Japan,China,UK,India,Korea.
Abstract
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
"This finding is attributable to the discovery of multiple fraudulent articles during the course of investigation of a single instance of fraud. For example, the retraction of a 2010 Blood article by Sawada et al. (14) was followed in rapid succession by the retraction of 30 additional articles originating from the laboratory of Naoki Mori".
"Citation of Retracted Articles.
Previous investigators have found that many retracted articles continue to be cited as if still valid work (15, 16), but others have documented an immediate effect of retraction on citation frequency (17). Although we did not examine this question comprehensively, we found considerable variation among the most frequently cited retracted articles (Table 3). Some retracted articles exhibited a rapid and sustained decline in citations following retraction, but others have continued to be cited (Fig. S3)."
"As the consideration of secondary sources led to changes in the perceived cause of retraction in 158 instances (Table S1), we conclude that for many retractions, the retraction notice is insufficient to ascertain the true cause of retraction".
"We further note that not all articles suspected of fraud have been retracted. The Lancet and British Medical Journal expressed serious reservations about the validity of the Indo-Mediterranean Diet Heart Study after the primary author was unable to present original records to document ethics review and informed consent (18, 19), yet the original articles have not been retracted (20, 21). Several articles authored by Mark Spector when he was working in the laboratory of Efraim Racker remain in the literature (22, 23), despite documentation that Spector committed data fabrication (24). R. K. Chandra was found to have committed fraud in the performance of clinical trials, but only a single article was retracted (25), even though considerable evidence was obtained to suggest that other publications were also fraudulent (26). Therefore, the current number of articles retracted because of fraud represents an underestimation of the actual number of fraudulent articles in the literature".
"Although some retraction announcements are specific and detailed, many are uninformative or opaque. In 119 instances, no information regarding the reason for retraction was provided by the journal. Announcements are often written by the authors of the retracted article themselves (27), who may be understandably reluctant to implicate themselves in misconduct".
The authors of a study on research fraud feel it's "understandable" the author of fraudulent work wouldn't want to implicate themselves! Or perhaps it's psychotic......"36). A 2005 Science article by Fukuhara et al. continues to be cited even though both the HTML and PDF versions are clearly marked as retracted, and the PDF version includes a copy of the retraction notice (37). Many scientists continue to cite the article by Fukuhara et al. for its initial identification of visfatin as an adipocytokine, even though the article was retracted because of concerns about the cytokine’s reported insulin mimetic properties (38). This practice suggests that under certain circumstances, scientists continue to find utility in retracted articles, particularly those retracted because of error, and supports a policy of continued access to retracted articles as long as detailed descriptions regarding the reasons for retraction are provided."
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
