Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1-6

  Fanelli, Daniele ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; ERROR; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; RETRACTED ARTICLE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; ETHICS; PUBLICATION; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

PUBLICATIONS;

EID: 84892898739     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A, (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 17028-17033.
2. Richards S, (2012) Fraud breeds retractions. The Scientist Available: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32687/title/Fraud-Breeds-Retractions/.
3. Steen RG, (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 37: 249-253.
4. Zimmer C (2012 April 16) A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform. The New York Times.
5. Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, Yan LL, (2013) Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine 10: e1001315 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
6. Fang FC, Bennett JW, Casadevall A, (2013) Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. Mbio 4: e00640-12.
7. Fang FC, Casadevall A, (2011) Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 79: 3855-3859.
8. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M, (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE 7: e44118 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118.
9. Steen RG, (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 37: 113-117.
10. Couzin-Frankel J, (2013) Shaking up science. Science 339: 386-389.
11. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC, (2013) Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8: e68397 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
12. Beal P (2008) A dictionary of English manuscript terminology: 1450 to 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Fanelli D, (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4: e5738 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
14. Reich ES (2009) Plastic fantastic. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
15. Anonymous (2013) Seven days- Trend Watch. Nature 497: 10-11.
16. Kaatz A, Vogelman PN, Carnes M, (2013) Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? maybe, maybe not. Mbio 4: e00156-13.
17. Fanelli D, (2013) Only reporting guidelines can save (soft) science. Eur J Personality 27: 124-125.
18. Fanelli D, (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494: 149.
19. Resnik DB, Dinse GE, (2013) Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics 39: 46-50.
20. Wager E, Williams P, (2011) Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics 37: 567-570.
21. Williams P, Wager E, (2013) Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. ScieEng Ethics 19: 1-11.
22. Resnik DB, Patrone D, Peddada S, (2010) Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance 17: 79-84.
23. Resnik DB, Peddada S, Brunson W, (2009) Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance 16: 254-267.
24. Fanelli D (2011) The black, the white and the grey areas- towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. T. SNM, editor. Promoting Research Integrity on a Global Basis. Singapore; Hackensack (New Jersey); London: World Scientific Publishing Co. Ptc. Ltd.
25. Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K, (2013) Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. Lancet 381: 1097-1098.
26. Steneck NH, (2013) Global research integrity training. Science 340: 552-553.
27. Errami M, Sun ZH, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR, (2009) Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research 37: D921-D924.
28. de Meis L, Velloso A, Lannes D, Carmo MS, de Meis C, (2003) The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Braz J Med Biol Res 36: 1135-1141.
29. Abramo G, Cicero T, D'Angelo CA, (2011) The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems. Scientometrics 87: 641-654.
30. van Dalen HP, Henkens K, (2012) Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 63: 1282-1293.
31. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P, (2011) Changing incentives to publish. Science 333: 702-703.
32. Pautasso M, (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85: 193-202.
33. Fanelli D, (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90: 891-904.
34. Fanelli D, (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? an empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 5: e10271 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
35. Doucouliagos H, Laroche P, Stanley TD, (2005) Publication bias in union-productivity research? Relat Ind Ind Relat 60: 320-347.
36. Munafo MR, Attwood AS, Flint J, (2008) Bias in genetic association studies: effects of research location and resources. Psychol Med 38: 1213-1214.
37. Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA, (2013) US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 15031-15036.