Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2019, Pages

  Stavale, Rafaelly ^a   Ferreira, Graziani Izidoro ^a   Galvão, João Antônio Martins ^b   Zicker, Fábio ^c   Novaes, Maria Rita Carvalho Garbi ^d   de Oliveira, César Messias ^e   Guilhem, Dirce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA   (Brazil)

^b Telecomunicações do Brasil Telebrás   (Brazil)

^c INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^d Health Sciences Education and Research Foundation ESCS Fepecs   (Brazil)

^e UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAREER; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; MEDICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS; MEDLINE; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION NOTICE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; BIOMEDICINE; BRAZIL; ETHICS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; TIME FACTOR;

BIBLIOGRAPHIES AS TOPIC; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BRAZIL; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLICATIONS; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 85064353850     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214272     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Masic I. Plagiarism in Scientific Research and Publications and How to Prevent It. Materia Socio-Med-ica. 2014; [cited 2017 dec]; 26(2):141–46. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2014.26.141-146 PMID: 24944543
2. Smith R. What is research misconduct? The COPE Report 2000: the Committee on Publication Ethics. BMJ Books. 2000. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/COPE2000pdfcomplete.pdf
3. Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLOS ONE. 2009; [cited 2018 jan]; 4(5): e5738. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 PMID: 19478950
4. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; [cited 2018 jan]; 109(42):17028–33. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479492/ PMID: 23027971
5. Hesselmann F, Graf V, Schmidt M, Reinhart M. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology. 2017; [cited 2018 oct]; 65(6): 814–845. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807 PMID: 28943647
6. Van Noorden R. The trouble with retractions. Nature. 2011; [cited 2018 feb]; 478(1):26–8. Available from: https://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html
7. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S, on behalf of COPE Council. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal. 2009; [cited 2018 mar]; 50 (6):532–535. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532 PMID: 20017220
8. Weed DL. Preventing scientific misconduct. AJPH 1998; [cited 2018 jan]; 88(1):125–129.
9. Bar-Ilan J. & Halevi G. Post Retraction Citations in Context: a case study. Scientometrics. 2017; [cited 2018 apr]; 3(1): 547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0
10. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature- how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics. 2011; [cited 2018 jan]; 37(11):688–92. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21586404 PMID: 21586404
11. Neimark J. Life of attack. Christopher Korch is adding up the costs of contaminated cell lines. Life Magazine 2015; [cited 2017 nov] 347(issue 6225). Available from: https://www.jillneimark.com/pdf/line-ofattack.pdf
12. Heckers S, Bauchner H, Flanagin A. Retracting, replacing and correcting the literature for pervasive error in which the results change but the underlying science is still reliable. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; [cited 2018 apr] 72(12):1170–1171. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26509425PMID: 26509425
13. Shaw and Satalkar’s schema for research integrity: https://wcrif.org/images/2017/documents/3.%20Wednesday%20May%2031,%202017/4.%202A-00/D.%20Shaw%20-%20Interpreting%20integrity; %20A%20conceptual.pdf
14. Reichenbach TM. A refeição em família- um lugar de encontro entre a história da alimentação e da enfermagem. Cogitare enferm. 2004; [cited 2017 aug] 9(2):53–65. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/ce.v9i2.1716
15. Cross D, Thomson S, Sinclair A. A report for CAPES. Research in Brazil. Research Clarivate. A Report for CAPES. Research Clarivate. Research in Brazil, 2018. https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/diversos/17012018CAPES-InCitesReport-Final.pdf
16. Kaiser M. The integrity of science: lost in translation? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol.2014; [cited 2018 jan]; 28(2):339–47. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24810194 PMID: 24810194
17. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. PLoS ONE. 2015; [cited 2017 oct]; 10(6): e0127556. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556 PMID: 26083381
18. Inter Academy Council (IAP). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: a policy report. The Netherlands: IAP. 2012. http://www.interacademies.net/file.aspx?id=19789
19. Brasil. Tabela de Áreas do Conhecimento. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecno-lógico. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações. 2017. http://www.cnpq.br/documents/10157/186158/TabeladeAreasdoConhecimento.pdf
20. Oransky I. Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process. Retraction Watch. 2018. https://retractionwatch.com
21. Venkatraman V. 2010. Conventions of scientific authorship. Science Retrieved 30 November, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1000039
22. Carpenter CR, Cone DC, Sarli CC. Using Publication Metrics to Highlight Academic Productivity and Research Impact. Academic emergency medicine: official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2014; [cited 2018 mar] 21(10):1160–1172. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12482 PMID: 25308141
23. GEOCAPES. Sistema de dados estatísticos da CAPES. Distribuição de programas de pós-graduação no Brasil em 2017. Brasil, 2018; [cited 2018 dec]. https://geocapes.capes.gov.br/geocapes/
24. Tsukumo DML, Carvalho-Filho MA, Carvalheira JBC, Prada PO, Hirabara SM, Schenka AA et al. Loss-of-Function Mutation in Toll-Like Receptor 4 Prevents Diet-Induced Obesity and Insulin Resistance. [retracted in Diabetes. 2008; 56:1986–1998]. https://doi.org/10.2337/db06-1595
25. Brun GR, Mossi AJ. Chemical characterization and antimicrobial activity of the volatile oil of pitanga “Brazilian Cherry”. PERSPECTIVA, Erechim. 2007; [cited 2018 feb]; 31(115): 9–16. [retracted in Can-sian RL, Mossi AJ, Toniazzo G, Paroul N, Cadore D, Reik GG, Cechet JL, Borges L, Malyz M, Michelin S, Astolfi V. PERSPECTIVA, Erechim. 2010; 34(127):135–42]. http://www.uricer.edu.br/site/pdfs/perspectiva/127_130.pdf
26. Gomes L, Von Zuben CJ. Forensic entomology and main challenges in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. Neotrop Entomol. 2006; [cited 2017 dec]; 35(1):1–11. [retracted in Neotrop Entomol. 2006; 35(1):1–11]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17352063 PMID: 17352063
27. Van Noorden R. Brazilian citation scheme outed. Thomson Reuters suspended journals from its rankings for ‘citation staking’. Nature 2013; cited 2018 mar]; 500:510–11. Available from: http://boletim.sbq.org.br/anexos/Braziliancitationscheme.pdf PMID: 23985850
28. Rocha M, Maris AM. A survey of recently published papers on orthopedics in the Brazilian scientific press. Acta Ortop. Brasileira. 2012; [cited 2018 jan]; 20(6). [retracted in Acta Ortop. Brasileira. 2013]. Available from: http://submission.scielo.br/index.php/aob/article/view/91103
29. Marcus A, Oransky I. What Studies of Retractions Tell Us. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 2014; [cited 2017 dec]; 15(2):151–154. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278466/
30. Decullier E, Huot GL, Samson, Maisonneuve H. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res. Notes. 2013; [cited 2018 jan]; 6: 238. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23782596 PMID: 23782596
31. Rossner M, Yamada KM. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol. 2004; 166(1):11–5 https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019 PMID: 15240566
32. Cromey DW. Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci Eng Ethics. 2010; 16(4):639–67 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9201-yPMID: 20567932
33. Fanelli D (2013) Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Med 10(12): e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 PMID: 24311988
34. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2013) Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS ONE 8(7): e68397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397 PMID: 23861902
35. Editorial. The long road to retraction. Nature Medicine 2003; [cited 2017 nov]; 9:1093. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v9/n9/full/nm0903-1093.html?foxtrotcallback=true PMID: 12949503
36. Bakker C, Riegelman A. Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2018; [cited 2018 mar]; 6(1): eP2199. Available from: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2199