The persistence of error: A study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 100, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 184-188

  Davis, Philip M ^a  

^a Independent Consultant   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIBLIOMETRICS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STATISTICS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84865816938     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: 15589439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008     Document Type: TB

References (36)

1. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):296-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296.
2. Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF. Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics. 2008 Nov 1;34(11):807-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023069.
3. Budd JM, Coble ZC, Anderson KM. Retracted publications in biomedicine: cause for concern. Association of College and Research Libraries Conference; Philadelphia, PA; 2011. p. 390-5.
4. Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1420-3.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100140020.
5. Furman JL, Jensen K, Murray F. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Res Policy. 2012 Mar;41(2):276-90.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.11.001.
6. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature: the Stephen E. Breuning case. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1424-6.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100144021.
7. Peterson GM. The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature. J Med Lib Assoc. 2010 Apr;98(2):135-9.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.2.005.
8. Merton RK. The normative structure of science. In: Storer NW, ed. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1973. p. 267-78.
9. Broad WJ. Fraud and the structure of science. Science. 1981 Apr 10;212(4491):137-41.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7209527.
10. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retraction guidelines [Internet]. The Committee; 2009 [cited 2 Dec 2011].http://www.publicationethics.org/files/retractionguidelines.pdf.
11. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? an analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr 12;37:567-70.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964.
12. Wright K, McDaid C. Reporting of article retractions in bibliographic databases. J Med Lib Assoc. 2011 Apr;99(2): 164-7.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.010.
13. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr 1;37(4):249-53.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923.
14. Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. J Med Lib Assoc. 2011 Jul;99(3):208-17.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.008.
15. Gaulé P. Access to scientific literature in India. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009 Dec;12(8):2548-53.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21195.
16. Wren JD. Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the Internet. BMJ. 2005 12 Apr;330(7500),DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38422.611736.E0.
17. SHERPA/RoMEO. Publisher copyright policies & selfarchiving [Internet]. University of Nottingham [cited 18 Apr 2011].http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php.
18. Davis PM, Connolly MJL. Institutional repositories: evaluating the reasons for non-use of Cornell University's installation of DSpace. D-Lib Mag. 2007 Mar/Apr;13(3/4).
19. Morris S. Journal authors' rights: perception and reality [Internet]. London, UK: Publishing Research Consortium; 2009. Summary paper 5. http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/JournalAuthorsRights.pdf.
20. ePrints. ROARMAP: registry of open access repository material archiving policies [Internet]. [cited 20 Mar 2012].,http://roarmap.eprints.org.
21. Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB. Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 Oct;4(10):e1000204. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204.
22. Niu X, Hemminger BM, Lown C, Adams S, Brown C, Level A, McLure M, Powers A, Tennant MR, Cataldo T. National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2010 24 Feb;61(5):869-90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ asi.21307.
23. Molckovsky A, Vickers MM, Tang PA. Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals. Curr Oncol. 2011 Feb;18(1):26-32.
24. Garfield E. How to avoid spreading error. scientists must search for corrections. Scientist. 1987 Aug;1(19):255-7.
25. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 18;144(8):609-13.
26. National Library of Medicine. Errata, retractions, partial retractions, corrected and republished articles, duplicate publications, comments (including author replies), updates, patient summaries, and republished (reprinted) articles policy for MEDLINE [Internet]. The Library [cited 20 Mar 2012]. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html.
27. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniformrequirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: publishing and editorial issues related to publication in biomedical journals: corrections, retractions and "expressions of concern" [Internet]. The Committee; 2009 [cited 20 Mar 2012]. http://www.icmje.org/publishing_2corrections.html
28. Crossref. CrossMark [Internet]. [cited 2 Dec 2011].http://www.crossref.org/crossmark/.
29. Meyer CA. Distinguishing published scholarly content with CrossMark. Learn Publ. 2011 Apr;24(2):87-93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110202.
30. Mendeley [Internet]. [cited 15 Nov 2010].http://www.mendeley.com.
31. Broadus RN. An investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations. JAmSoc Inf Sci. 1983 Mar;34(2):132-5.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630340206.
32. Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP. Stochastic modeling of citation slips. Scientometrics. 2005;62(3):367-84. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0028-2.
33. Haines LL, Light J, O'Malley D, Delwiche FA. Informationseeking behavior of basic science researchers: implications for library services. J Med Lib Assoc. 2010 Jan;98(1):73-81. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.019.
34. Jamali HR, Asadi S. Google and the scholar: the role of Google in scientists' information-seeking behaviour. Online Inform Rev. 2010;34(2):282-94.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521011036990.
35. Chubin DE, Moitra SD. Content analysis of references: adjunct or alternative to citation counting? Soc Stud Sci. 1975 Nov;5(4):423-41.
36. Moravcsik MJ, Murugesan P. Some results on the function and quality of citations. Soc Stud Sci. 1975 Feb;5(1):86-92.