Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine

Furman, Jeffrey L.; Jensen, Kyle; Murray, Fiona

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.11.001

Cited by 129 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Widespread use of the internet has been hypothesized to increase the level of scrutiny given to published articles [7], [21], [22]. To test the hypothesis that the time-to-retraction is shorter for articles given a high level of scrutiny, the number of months to retraction was correlated with the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which an article was published (“Journal IF”), as a measure of article visibility (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Steen¹,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.Methods and FindingsWe examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Steen¹,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Retracted papers continue to be cited with alarming frequency and without acknowledgement of their retracted status. Furman et al (2012) estimate a rate of bad citation at less than 50 percent while another study has estimated preliminary rates of over 90 percent (Van Noorden, 2011).…”

Section: Science Metrics and Science Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As importantly, roughly two-thirds of these retractions were attributable to misconduct while more than 43 percent of retractions were due to suspected data manipulation or falsification. Moreover, although retraction of a paper substantially decreases future citations (Furman, Jensen, & Murray, 2012), the influence of retracted papers lives on. Retracted papers continue to be cited with alarming frequency and without acknowledgement of their retracted status.…”

Section: Science Metrics and Science Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy, and Technology for the Citation of Data

Socha¹

2013

Data Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Edited by Yvonne M. Socha PREFACEThe growth in the capacity of the research community to collect and distribute data presents huge opportunities. It is already transforming old methods of scientific research and permitting the creation of new ones. However, the exploitation of these opportunities depends upon more than computing power, storage, and network connectivity. Among the promises of our growing universe of online digital data are the ability to integrate data into new forms of scholarly publishing to allow peer-examination and review of conclusions or analysis of experimental and observational data and the ability for subsequent researchers to make new analyses of the same data, including their combination with other data sets and uses that may have been unanticipated by the original producer or collector.The use of published digital data, like the use of digitally published literature, depends upon the ability to identify, authenticate, locate, access, and interpret them. Data citations provide necessary support for these functions, as well as other functions such as attribution of credit and establishment of provenance. References to data, however, present challenges not encountered in references to literature. For example, how can one specify a particular subset of data in the absence of familiar conventions such as page numbers or chapters? The traditions and good practices for maintaining the scholarly record by proper references to a work are well established and understood in regard to journal articles and other literature, but attributing credit by bibliographic references to data are not yet so broadly implemented.Recognizing the needs for better data referencing and citation practices and investing effort to address those needs has come at different rates in different fields and disciplines. As competing conventions and practices emerge in separate communities, inconsistencies and incompatibilities can interfere with promoting the sharing and use of research data. In order to reconcile this problem, sharing experiences across communities may be necessary, or at least helpful, to achieving the full potential of published data.Practical and consistent data citation standards and practices are thus important for providing the incentives, recognition, and rewards that foster scientific progress. New requirements from funding agencies to develop data management plans emphasize the need to develop standards and data citation practices.

show abstract

“…A more recent publication also found that a retraction did not affect the paper's citations rate within 12 months of retraction [100] and an investigation of the effect of rebuttals on seven high-profile original articles found that original articles were cited much more frequently than the rebuttals, with no reduced effect on annual citation numbers [101]. In contrast, other reports found that retraction significantly reduced subsequent citation [102], [103] and that this reduction extends to the authors’ other published work [104]. Remarkably, an unexpected 18% of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction [why would they do that?…”

Section: Hype and Retractionsmentioning

confidence: 98%