Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 5-24

  Neale, Anne Victoria ^a   Northrup, Justin ^a   Dailey, Rhonda ^a   Marks, Ellen ^a   Abrams, Judith ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Biomedical publishing; Publication ethics; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDLINE; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PUBLISHING; PUBMED; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 34548779713     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson, A. (1988). First scientific fraud conviction. Nature, 335, 389.
2. Angell, M., & Kassirer, J. P. (1994). Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1448-1450.
3. Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 242-250.
4. Bonetta, L. (2006). The aftermath of scientific fraud. Cell, 124, 873-875.
5. Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 296-297.
6. Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., Schultz, T. R., & Scoville, C. (1999). Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87, 437-443.
7. Couzin, J., & Unger, K. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, 312, 38-43.
8. Culliton, B. J. (1983). Coping with fraud: The Darsee case. Science, 220, 31-35.
9. Engler, R. L., Covell, J. W., Friedman, P. J., Kitcher, P. S., & Peters, R. M. (1987). Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 1383-1389.
10. Friedman, P. J. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1416-1419.
11. Holden, C. (1987). NIMH finds a case of "serious misconduct". Science, 235, 1566-1567.
12. Kotzin, S., & Schuyler, P. L. (1989). NLM's practices for handling errata and retractions. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 77, 337-342.
13. Marwick, C. (1992). Federal health officials continue to reorganize offices for investigating scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 848.
14. McCook, A. (2005). Retraction sparks lawsuit. The Scientist, 6, 1012-1021.
15. Office of Research Integrity. (2006). [website]. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/. Accessed December 6, 2006.
16. Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Executive Office of the President; Federal Policy on Research Misconduct; Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy. Federal Register, 65, 76260-76264.
17. Parrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74, 221-230.
18. Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 483-491.
19. Pascal, C. B. (1999). The history and future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 183-198.
20. Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1420-1423.
21. Reynolds, S. M. (2004). ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992-2002. Clinical Trials, 1, 509-516.
22. Schiermeier, Q. (1998). Authors slow to retract 'fraudulent' papers. Nature, 393, 402.
23. Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 609-613.
24. Unger, K., & Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure. Science, 312, 40-41.
25. United States National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. (2006). Errata, Retraction, Duplicate Publication, Comment, Update and Patient Summary Policy for MEDLINE. Fact Sheet [website]. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed April 11, 2006.