Correction to: An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii (Anaesthesia, (2019), 74, 1, (17-21), 10.1111/anae.14414);An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii

Anaesthesia

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 17-21

  McHugh, U M ^a   Yentis, S M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GALWAY   (Ireland)

^b CHELSEA AND WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

data fabrication; error; fraud; randomised controlled trials

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIST; ARTICLE; EDITOR; ETHICS; FRAUD; HUMAN; MISCONDUCT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RETRACTION NOTICE; ANESTHESIOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85052470554     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14515     Document Type: Erratum

References (21)

1. Shafer SL. Tattered threads. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009; 108: 1361–3.
2. Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 521–37.
3. Wise J. Boldt: the great pretender. British Medical Journal 2013; 346: f1738.
4. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S, on behalf of COPE Council. Retraction guidelines. Committee on publication ethics, 2009. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf (accessed 13/04/2018).
5. Eisenach JC. Data fabrication and article retraction: how not to get lost in the woods. Anesthesiology 2009; 110: 955–6.
6. Anaesthesia. Author guidelines. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2044/homepage/ForAuthors.html (accessed 13/04/2018).
7. 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.
8. Bornemann-Cimenti H, Szilagyi IS, Sandner-Kiesling A. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics 2016; 22: 1063–72.
9. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998; 280: 296–7.
10. Martin E. Report of the Committee for the investigation into the allegation of scientific fraud by Dr. Joachim Boldt and his coworkers, 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2044/homepage/Klinikum_Ludwigshafen_Committee_Report_English_Translation.pdf (accessed 13/04/2018).
11. Sumikawa K. The results of investigation into Dr.Yoshitaka Fujii's papers. Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists, 2012. http://www.anesth.or.jp/english/pdf/news20120629.pdf (accessed 13/04/2018).
12. Peto R, Peto J. Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1972; 135: 186–207.
13. White PF, Rosow CE, Shafer SL. The Scott Reuben saga: one last retraction. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2011; 112: 512–15.
14. Hwang S, Reuben S, Maciolek H. Assessing risk factors for the development of CRPS following fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture. The Journal of Pain 2006; 7:(Suppl. 4).
15. Couzin J, Unger K. Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science 2006; 312: 38–43.
16. Comstock J. Doctors prefer tablets for journal articles, smartphones for most other tasks. Mobile Health News, 2014. www.mobihealthnews.com/29253/survey-doctors-prefer-tablets-for-journal-articles-smartphones-for-most-other-tasks (accessed 13/04/2018).
17. Cain S. Ebook sales continue to fall as younger generations drive appetite for print. The Guardian, 2017. www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/14/ebook-sales-continue-to-fall-nielsen-survey-uk-book-sales (accessed 13/04/2018).
18. CLUE Working Group. Cooperation & liaison between universities & editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice. Preprint for consultation, 2017. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/19/139170.full.pdf (accessed 13/04/2018).
19. Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 848–58.
20. Carlisle JB. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 944–52.
21. Loadsman JA, McCulloch TJ. Widening the search for suspect data – is the flood of retractions about to become a tsunami? Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 931–5.