Retractions of scientific publications: Responsibility and accountability

Biochemia Medica

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 217-222

  Katavić, Vedran ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Accountability; Retraction of publication as topic; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; RESPONSIBILITY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84902173293     PISSN: 13300962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2014.024     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Korpela KM. How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material?: the Breuning case revisited. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 843-7. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1185/03007991003603804.
2. Unger K, Couzin J. Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure. Science 2006; 312: 40-1. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1126/science. 312. 5770. 40.
3. Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D. The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks. Science and Engineering Ethics 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11948-014-9532-1.
4. Davis PM. The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc2012; 100: 184-9. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3163/1536-5050. 100. 3. 008.
5. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 567-70. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1136/jme. 2010. 040964.
6. Marusic A. Editors as gatekeepers of responsible science. Biochem Med 2010; 20: 282-7. http://dx. doi. org/10. 11613/BM. 2010. 035.
7. Marusic A, Katavic V, Marusic M. Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Med Law 2007; 26: 545-66.
8. Scott-Lichter D, Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. 3rd Revised Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO: 2012.
9. Van Noorden R. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature 2011; 478: 26-8. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/478026a.
10. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 2008; 9: 2. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/sj. embor. 7401143.
11. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001563. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pmed. 1001563.
12. Retraction Watch. Available at: www. retractionwatch. com. Accessed March 27, 2014.
13. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PloS One 2013; 8: e68397. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0068397.
14. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 17028-33. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1073/pnas. 1212247109.
15. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PloS One 2012; 7: e44118. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0044118.
16. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Selfcorrection in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J 2014; 55: 61-72. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3325/cmj. 2014. 55. 61.
17. Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A. How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Rep 2007; 8: 422-3. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/sj. embor. 7400970.
18. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009; 4: e5738. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0005738.
19. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435: 737-8. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/435737a.
20. Liu SV. Top Journal's Top Retraction Rates. Scientific Ethics 2006; 1: 91-3.
21. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 2011; 79: 3855-9. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1128/IAI. 05661-11.
22. Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respir Care 2004; 49: 1229-32.
23. Jia XY, Tan XF, Zhang YH. Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism? Scientometrics 2014; 98: 337-45. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11192-013-1033-5.
24. Roig M. Plagiarism: consider the context. Science 2009; 325: 813-4. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1126/science. 325_813c.
25. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012; 483: 531-3. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/483531a.
26. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e124. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pmed. 0020124.
27. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 712. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/nrd3439-c1.
28. The Reproducibility Initiative. Available at: http://reproducibilityinitiative. org/. Accessed March 28, 2014.
29. Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 2013; 496: 398. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/496398a.
30. Nature Special: Challenges in irreproducible research. Available at: http://www. nature. com/nature/focus/reproducibility/index. html. Accessed March 28, 2014.
31. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ 2011; 342: c7452. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1136/bmj. c7452.
32. Bosch X. Improving biomedical journals' ethical policies: the case of research misconduct. J Med Ethics 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1136/medethics-2013-101822.