Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors;Mala conducta como principal causa para la retractación. Un estudio descriptivo de las publicaciones retractadas y sus autores

Gaceta Sanitaria

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2019, Pages 356-360

  Campos Varela, Isabel ^a,b   Ruano Raviña, Alberto ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

^b Hospital Santiago de Compostela   (Spain)

^c CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

Author keywords

Authorship; Fraud; Peer review; Plagiarism; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHINA; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EGYPT; FRAUD; IRAN; MEDLINE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION NOTICE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; WRITING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; RESEARCH ETHICS;

AUTHORSHIP; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA MANAGEMENT; ETHICS, RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PLAGIARISM; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85047066366     PISSN: 02139111     EISSN: 15781283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., Casadevall, A., Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109 (2012), 17028–17033.
2. Kleinert, S., Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. Lancet. 377 (2011), 281–282.
3. Guidelines CoPECr. Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE retraction guidelines. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines_0.pdf.
4. Marcovitch, H., Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit. 21 (2007), 492–499.
5. Nath, S.B., Marcus, S.C., Druss, B.G., Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?. Med J Aust. 185 (2006), 152–154.
6. Budd, J.M., Sievert, M., Schultz, T.R., Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 280 (1998), 296–297.
7. Tramer, M.R., Reynolds, D.J., Moore, R.A., et al. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 315 (1997), 635–660.
8. von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., et al. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 291 (2004), 974–980.
9. Haug, C.J., Peer-review fraud - hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med. 373 (2015), 2393–2395.
10. Stretton, S., Bramich, N.J., Keys, J.R., et al. Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 28 (2012), 1575–1583.
11. Woolley, K.L., Lew, R.A., Stretton, S., et al. Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 27 (2011), 1175–1182.
12. Trikalinos, N.A., Evangelou, E., Ioannidis, J.P., Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J Clin Epidemiol. 61 (2008), 464–470.
13. Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., de Vries, R., Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 435 (2005), 737–738.
14. Fanelli, D., How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLos One., 4, 2009, e5738.
15. Aulakh, R., Mandatory publication in India: setting quotas for research output could encourage scientific fraud. BMJ., 354, 2016, i5002.
16. Abdollahi, M., Gasparyan, A.Y., Saeidnia, S., The urge to publish more and its consequences. Daru., 22, 2014, 53.
17. Das, A.K., ’Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts: emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 72 (2016), 172–174.
18. Angell, M., Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med. 104 (1986), 261–262.
19. Liao, Q.J., Zhang, Y.Y., Fan, Y.C., et al. Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: a comparison between 2015 and 2010. Sci Eng Ethics. 24 (2018), 629–645.
20. Foo, J.Y., A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics. 17 (2011), 459–468.
21. Callaway, E., Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature., 479, 2011, 15.
22. Fang, F.C., Bennett, J.W., Casadevall, A., Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. MBio., 4, 2013 e00640-00612.
23. (ORI) USooRI. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary.
24. Decullier, E., Huot, L., Samson, G., et al. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res Notes., 6, 2013, 238.
25. Casadevall, A., Steen, R.G., Fang, F.C., Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J., 28, 2014 3847-55.