Empirical developments in retraction

Abstract

This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary. CommentsReprinted ABSTRACT This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary.Previous studies of retraction of scientific articles have shown that the dominant reason for retraction is research error or inability to reproduce results (generally referred to as ''inability to reproduce''). 1 2 Citation continues long after retraction, raising questions about the adequacy of current methods of notification.3 Here we update these findings. We report changes in rate and agent of retraction and in length of time between publication and retraction and examine the role of publicity on post-retraction citation rate.

Governing Knowledge in the Scientific Community: Exploring the Role of Retractions in Biomedicine

“…By the mid-1980s, less than 1% of articles indexed in MEDLINE in 1986 had been retracted (Kotzin & Schuyler, 1989). Redman et al (2008) report than retractions constituted less than 0.01% of all records in PubMed between 1995 and 2004, although they report that figure has risen over time. Both of these facts are consistent with the percentage of articles retracted from journals that appear in our sample.…”

“…Pfeifer and Snodgrass (1990) conclude that, "[m]ethods currently in place to remove invalid literature from use appear to be grossly inadequate" (1990, p. 1423). Indeed prior research on this topic raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of retractions in steering subsequent research projects away from the shaky foundations of false science (Budd 1998, Redman 2008. However, none of the prior work uses effective control groups or econometric methods.…”

“…Prior studies on this topic have found that retracted articles to continue to receive citations and have concluded that scientists (wastefully) treat such articles as if their findings were valid even after they are acknowledged as false (Pfeiffer and Snodgrass, 1990Snodgrass, , 1992Budd et al, 1998;and Redman et al, 2008). However, they rely on descriptive techniques, such as comparing pre-retraction and post-retraction citation counts.…”

Scientific Utopia

“…False effects can remain for decades, slowly fading or continuing to inspire and influence new research (Prinz et al, 2011). Further, even when it becomes known that an effect is false, retraction of the original result is very rare (Budd, Sievert, & Schultz, 1998;Redman, Yarandi, & Merz, 2008). Researchers who do not discover the corrective knowledge may continue to be influenced by the original, false result.…”

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

“…Redman et al found similarly troubling behavior among researchers who had been less than candid about their misconduct. 118 In their citation analysis of retracted research papers, they found that of the 26 papers that were forced to be retracted because data fabrication and/or falsification had been determined by the US Office of Research Integrity, 12 admitted to fabrication or falsification; the other 14 asserted exculpatory reasons for the retraction such as 'data are invalid. ' In response to these various concerns over the aftermath of publication, Sox and Rennie propose a list of guidelines for formal letters of retraction and correction of published research papers, 119 one of which calls for the very words used by the investigating institution.…”