The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 299-302

  Da Silva, Jaime A Teixeira ^a  

^a NONE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Accountability; Corrigendum; Erratum; Ethics; Retraction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84936867101     PISSN: 08923310     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Butler, D. (2013). The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495, 433-435.
2. Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563.
3. Ferguson, C. (2015). Other shoe drops for MIT cancer researcher Robert Weinberg as Cell retraction appears. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/03/other-shoe-drops-for-mitcancer-researcher-robert-weinberg-as-cell-retraction-appears
4. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480-482. Mainichi Weekly. http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130725p2a00m0na 012000c.html
5. Marcus, A. (2015). JCI retracts paper by stem cell biologist Jacob Hanna, citing "figure irregularities." http://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/08/jci-retracts-stem-cell-paper-byjacob-hanna-citing-f gure-irregularities
6. Oransky, I. (2014). Shigeaki Kato up to 33 retractions, with five papers cited a total of 450 times. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/02/shigeaki-kato-up-to-33-retractions-with-fivepapers-cited-a-total-of-450-times
7. PubMed Commons. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons
8. PubPeer. https://pubpeer.com
9. Resnik, D. B. (2014). Science and money: Problems and solutions. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 159-161.
10. Retraction Watch. http://retractionwatch.com
11. Seife, C. (2014). For sale: "your name here" in a prestigious science journal. Scientific American. http://www.scientif camerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigiousscience-journal
12. Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2013a). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7 (Special Issue 1), 6-15.
13. Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2013b). How to better achieve integrity in science publishing. European Science Editors, 39(4), 97-98.
14. Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2014). Postpublication peer review in plant science. Science Editor, 37(2), 57-59.
15. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Publicly questioned papers more likely to be retracted. http://www.nature.com/news/publicly-questioned-papers-more-likely-to-be-retracted-1.14979
16. Yong, E., Ledford, H., Van Noorden, R. (2013). Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whist le. Nature, 503, 433-435.