Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections

Fanelli, Daniele; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Goodman, Steven N.

doi:10.1111/eci.12898

Cited by 38 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, contrary to common concerns that misconduct is rising in science, multiple lines of evidence suggest that the growth in retractions results mainly or entirely from the expansion and strengthening of policies and practices to correct the literature [1]. If retractions manifest scientific selfcorrection, then their recent rise is to be celebrated as a positive development that should be further encouraged [2,3].…”

Section: Bodymentioning

confidence: 97%

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Fanelli

Moher

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every year, several hundred publications are retracted due to fabrication and falsification of data or plagiarism and other breeches of research integrity and ethics. Despite considerable research on this phenomenon, the extent to which a retraction requires revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs – which we define as the epistemic impact - is unknown. We collected a representative sample of recently retracted studies that had been included in recent meta-analyses, and compared the summary effect size of these meta analyses with and without the refracted studies. On average, the retractions had occurred about six years prior to the publication of the corresponding meta-analyses.Our results suggest that retractions have varying impacts depending on their causes. In particular, removing from an analysis a study retracted because of issues with data, methods or results, led to a statistically significant reduction of the estimated effect size. Assuming that the results of these retracted studies are completely false, then the meta-analyses that had included them had overestimated the summary effect sizes by, averaging across effect size metrics, 30% (median, 13%). However, retractions due to plagiarism or other issues not related to data, methods or results had no impact on the conclusions of meta-analyses.Since retractions due to plagiarism or other non-data related issues typically constitute over 75% of total retractions, our results suggest that the epistemic impact of most retractions is likely to be null. However, our results also suggest that retractions due to issues with data, methods or results should be accompanied by a revision of relevant meta-analyses, and by extension a downwards revision of prior scientific beliefs.

show abstract

Section: Bodymentioning

confidence: 97%

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Fanelli

Moher

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publishers should ensure such communications are indexed and easy to locate when reading the original article and conducting literature searches. 10. Allow flexibility in correspondence guidelines.…”

Section: Do Not Impose Time Limits For Corrections Some Jour-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self‐correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Vorland

Brown

Ejima

et al. 2020

Eur J Clin Investigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The concept has been discussed since in a workshop that included policymakers, publishers, and the scientific community (Fanelli et al , ). Fanelli et al define a “withdrawal” as an article “that has methodological or theoretical flaws that may affect other publications or ongoing research”.…”

Section: Corrections Toolkitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept has been discussed since in a workshop that included policymakers, publishers, and the scientific community (Fanelli et al, 2018). Fanelli et al define a Initiated by the journal when there is evidence for serious flaws that are under formal investigation, where the readership needs to be updated Editorial note Points to issues with data contained in an article "withdrawal" as an article "that has methodological or theoretical flaws that may affect other publications or ongoing research".…”

Section: Exploding the Toolkitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such cases, the expectation is for authors to self-report when they become aware of data that refutes their original paper. Ideally, the evidence to support the withdrawal of a paper is peer-reviewed and the withdrawal notice includes specific details to justify the papers' removal from the scientific record (Fanelli et al, 2018). The workshop set out to define an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.…”

Section: Exploding the Toolkitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self‐correction prevents withdrawal syndrome

Boxheimer

Pulverer

2019

The EMBO Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections

Cited by 38 publications

References 12 publications

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self‐correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Self‐correction prevents withdrawal syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About