The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Learned Publishing

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 119-130

  Vuong, Quan Hoang ^a  

^a PHENIKAA UNIVERSITY   (Viet Nam)

Author keywords

limitations; publishing practice; retraction

Indexed keywords

EID: 85077171441     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1282     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., Rogers, G., & Szomszor, M. (2019). Global research report – South and East Asia [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/south-and-east-asia/
2. Alberts, B., Cicerone, R. J., Fienberg, S. E., Kamb, A., McNutt, M., Nerem, R. M., … Jamieson, K. H. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420–1422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3847
3. Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005
4. Baker, M. (2016). Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature News, 531, 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19503
5. Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2017). Post retraction citations in context: A case study. Scientometrics, 113(1), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0
6. Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: A systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1
7. Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty’. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384
8. Byrne, J. (2019). We need to talk about systematic fraud. Nature, 566, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9
9. Campos-Varela, I., & Ruano-Raviña, A. (2019). Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta Sanitaria, 33(4), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
10. Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Reports, 8(5), 422–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400970
11. Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Reports, 9(1), 2–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401143
12. Coudert, F.-X. (2019). Correcting the scientific record: Retraction practices in chemistry and materials science. Chemistry of Materials, 31(10), 3593–3598. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897
13. Cox, A., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2018). Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics. Research Policy, 47(5), 924–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.016
14. Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/451397a
15. Fanelli, D. (2013a). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature News, 494, 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a
16. Fanelli, D. (2013b). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
17. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
18. Geh, E. Z. (2010). Understanding the antecedents to an entrepreneurial firm's intent to engage in international strategic alliances. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 18(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495810000653
19. Georgette, N. T. (2009). Predicting the herd immunity threshold during an outbreak: A recursive approach. PLoS One, 4(1), e4168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004168
20. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One, 7(10), e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
21. He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0906-3
22. Ho, M. T., Nguyen, T. H. K., Vuong, T. T., Nguyen, M. H., & Ho, M. T. (2019). To walk on the Penrose stairs of science [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://socialsciences.nature.com/users/301097-ho-manh-toan/posts/54541-to-walk-on-the-penrose-stairs-of-science
23. Hosseini, M., Hilhorst, M., de Beaufort, I., & Fanelli, D. (2018). Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2
24. Korpela, K. M. (2010). How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material? The Breuning case revisited. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 26(4), 843–847. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007991003603804
25. Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409–1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7
26. Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports, 3, 3146. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146
27. Madlock-Brown, C. R., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1
28. Maisonneuve, H., & Decullier, E. (2014). EASE standard retraction form. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Forum%20Discussion%20summary_Standard%20retraction%20form_final.pdf
29. Marcus, A. (2018). A scientist's fraudulent studies put patients at risk. Science, 362(6413), 394. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.394-a
30. Mistry, V., Grey, A., & Bolland, M. J. (2019). Publication rates after the first retraction for biomedical researchers with multiple retracted publications. Accountability in Research, 26(5), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1612244
31. Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed central. BMJ Open, 6(11), e012047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047
32. Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: Misconduct or mistakes? Medical Journal of Australia, 185(3), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x
33. National Science Board. (2017). Academic research and development. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/academic-research-and-development/outputs-of-s-e-research-publications
34. Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2010). Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9151-4
35. Noorden, R. V. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature News, 478, 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
36. Noorden, R. v. (2018). Science in East Asia – By the numbers. Nature, 558, 500–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05505-2
37. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
38. Oransky, I. (2018). Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the rankings. Science, 362(6413), 395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.395
39. Park, J., Lee, J. Y., & Kwon, O.-J. (2018). How the retracted publications are managed and used? A South Korean case. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/65338
40. Pouya, E. A., & Rajabi, A. (2016). Three-dimensional study of the six-body bound-state for the case of effective three-body configuration model. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25(9), 1650072. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301316500725
41. Qiu, X., Oliveira, D. F., Shirazi, A. S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2019). Retraction note: Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0507-0
42. Redman, B. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008). Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(11), 807–809. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023069
43. Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100766
44. Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(3), 136–139. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006
45. Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by retraction watch in the 2013–2015 period: Prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114(2), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
46. Smart, P. (2018). A sting in the tail? Learned Publishing, 31(4), 331–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1202
47. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038125
48. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2018). Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer (“John Doe”) case. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 323–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9863-1
49. Vuong, Q.-H. (2018). The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 5–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0281-4
50. Vuong, Q.-H. (2019). Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0667-6
51. Vuong, Q.-H., & Tran, T. (Eds.). (2019). The Vietnamese social sciences at a fork in the road. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110686081
52. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf