Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2016, Pages

  Moylan, Elizabeth C ^a   Kowalczuk, Maria K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMED CENTRAL; CHECKLIST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ETHICS; HUMAN; MISCONDUCT; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; SCREENING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ETHICS COMMITTEES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84998827920     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Wager E. Barbour V. Yentis S. et al. Committee of Publication Ethics Retraction Guidelines. 2009. http://publicationethics.org/files/ retraction%20guidelines.pdf (accessed Mar 2015).
2. Eden L. The Ethicist Blog Retraction: mistake or misconduct?, 2013. http://ethicist.aom.org/2013/10/retraction-mistake-or-misconduct/ (accessed Jul 2015).
3. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One 2012;7:e44118.
4. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:17028-33.
5. Retraction Watch blog. SAGE Publications busts "peer review and citation ring, " 60 papers retracted. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/ 08/sage-publications-busts-peer-review-and-citation-ring-60-papersretracted/ (accessed Jul 2015).
6. COPE statement on inappropriate peer review processes. http:// publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriatemanipulation- peer-review-processes (accessed Jun 2015).
7. Moylan EC. Inappropriate manipulation of peer review. 2015. http:// blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peerreview/ (accessed May 2015).
8. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud - hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2393-5.
9. Barbour V. Haldar K. The role of retractions in correcting the scientific literature. 2012. http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/ 2012/09/25/the-role-of-retractions-in-correcting-the-scientificliterature/ (accessed Jun 2015).
10. Retraction Watch blog. What should an ideal retraction notice look like? We (and COPE) want your input. http://retractionwatch.com/ 2014/09/16/what-should-an-ideal-retraction-notice-looklike- we-want-your-input/ (accessed Jun 2015).
11. COPE Forum Discussion Topic: Standard retraction form, 2014. http://publicationethics.org/forum-discussion-topic-commentsplease- 0
12. Bilbrey E. O'Dell N. Creamer J. A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications 2014;2:14-26.
13. Marcus A. Oransky I. What studies of retraction show us. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2014;15:151-4.
14. 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.
15. Williams P. Wager E. Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Sci Eng Ethics 2013;19:1-11.
16. BioMed Central Advanced Search. http://www.biomedcentral.com/ search (accessed Jan 2015).
17. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Research Integrity. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/research-integrity/ research-misconduct.htm (accessed Jun 2015).
18. Scopus. http://www.scopus.com/ (accessed Feb 2016).
19. von Elm E. Altman DG, Egger M. et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806.
20. Albada A. van Dulmen S. Bensing JM, et al. Effects of a pre-visit educational website on information recall and needs fulfilment in breast cancer genetic counselling, a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:402.
21. Tu X. Zhuang J. Wang W. et al. Screening and identification of a renal carcinoma specific peptide from a phage display peptide library. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2012;31:21.
22. Luo W. Ma L. Wen Q. et al. Analysis of the TCR alpha and beta chain CDR3 spectratypes in the peripheral blood of patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. J Autoimmune Dis 2008;5:5.
23. Weiss HR, Werkmann M. Retraction: Soft braces in the treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) - Review of the literature and description of a new approach. Scoliosis 2013;8:7.
24. Jafri SS, Kiran S. Jamal SB, et al. Retraction: Structure based sequence analysis & epitope prediction of gp41 HIV1 envelope glycoprotein isolated in Pakistan. Genet Vaccines Ther 2012;10:10.
25. Lega F. Mengoni A. Retraction: Profiling the different needs and expectations of patients for population-based medicine: a case study using segmentation analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:180.
26. Ngemu EK, Khayeka-Wandabwa C. Kweka EJ, et al. Retraction: Effectiveness of option B highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) in pregnant HIV women. BMC Res Notes 2014;7:868.
27. Naqvi N. Naqvi R. Wong C. et al. Retraction: a novel observation of pubic osteomyelitis due to Streptococcus viridans after dental extraction: a case report. J Med Case Rep 2009;3:122.
28. Steen RG, Casadevall A. Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 2013;8:e68397.
29. Jobb G. von Haeseler A. Strimmer K. Retraction Note: TREEFINDER: a powerful graphical analysis environment for molecular phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol 2015;15:243.
30. Budd JM, Sievert ME, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998;280:296-7. .296
31. Elia N. Wager E. Tramèr MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2014;9:e85846.
32. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;4:e5738.
33. Rossner M. Yamada KM. What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol 2004;166:11.
34. Hrynaszkiewicz I. July 2011. 'Availability of supporting data': crediting transparency and enhancing the literature. http://blogs. biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2011/07/07/availability-of-supportingdata- crediting-transparency-and-enhancing-the-literature/ (accessed May 2015).
35. Kenall A. May 2014. Implementing Reproducible Research: the Role of Publishers. An interview with Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Peter Li, and Scott Edmunds. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/05/13/ implementing-reproducible-research-the-role-of-publishers-aninterview- with-iain-hrynaszkiewicz-peter-li-and-scott-edmunds/ (accessed May 2015).
36. Kenall A. Edmunds S. Goodman L. et al. Better reporting for better research: a checklist for reproducibility. Genome Biol 2015;16:141.
37. Han D. Habte H. Qin Y. et al. Retraction: eliciting broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1 that target gp41 MPER. Retrovirology 2014;11:16.
38. Schroter S. Black N. Evans S. et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008;101:507-14.
39. Altman DG, Moher D. Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ 2013;347:f4796.
40. Wager E. Publication ethics: whose problem is it? Insights 2012;25:294-9.
41. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. December 2014. The Culture of Scientific Research. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/ research-culture/ (accessed May 2015).
42. Hicks D. Wouters P. Waltman L. et al. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics 22 April 2015. http://www.nature.com/ news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1. 17351 (accessed Apr 2015).
43. Barbour V. Perverse incentives and perverse publishing practices. Sci Bull 2016;60:1225-6.