Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

BMC Research Notes

Hervé Maisonneuve¹  Géraldine Samson²  Laure Huot²  Evelyne Decullier² 

[1] RECIF, EAM Santé Individu Société 4128, Université de Lyon, Lyon F-69003, France;Université Lyon 1, Lyon F-69003, France

关键词: Guidelines;    Scientific misconduct;    Retraction of publication;   

Others  :  1142384
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-238

 received in 2012-11-06, accepted in 2013-06-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines.

Methods

All retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type “retraction of publication”. The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article.

Results

Overall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction.

Conclusion

A standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Decullier et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. [http://www.icmje.org webcite]
• [2]Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, Rosenberg J, Marusic A, Laine C, Kotzin S, Horton R, Hebert PC, Haug C, et al.: Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. Lancet 2009, 374:1395-1396.
• [3]Can peer review police fraud? Nat Neurosci 2006, 9:149.
• [4]Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R: Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435:737-738.
• [5]Steen RG: Misinformation in the medical literature: What role do error and fraud play? J Med Ethics 2011, 37:498-503.
• [6]Sox HC, Rennie D: Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006, 144:609-613.
• [7]Smith R: When to retract? BMJ 2003, 327:883-884.
• [8]Marcus A: Retractions Come in Boldt Case, Likely Most for Single Author. Probe finds 88 papers lacked ethics approval. Anesthesiology News 2011., 37
• [9]Rittner HL, Kranke P, Schafer M, Roewer N, Brack A: [What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology]. Anaesthesist 2009, 58:1199-1209.
• [10]Wager E, Williams P: Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics 2011, 37:567-570.
• [11]Steen RG: Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 2011, 37:249-253.
• [12]Steen RG: Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 2011, 37:113-117.
• [13]Corbyn Z: Retractions up tenfold. Higher Education: Times; 2009.
• [14]COPE: Retraction guidelines. 2009. [http://www.publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf webcite]
• [15]Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG: Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 2006, 185:152-154.
• [16]Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF: Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:807-809.
• [17]Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR: Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998, 280:296-297.
• [18]Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C: Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1999, 87:437-443.
• [19]Newman M: The rules of retraction. BMJ 341:c6985.
• [20]Atlas MC: Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc 2004, 92:242-250.
• [21]Williams P, Wager E: Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Sci Eng Ethics 2013, 19:1-11.
• [22]Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL: The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA 1990, 263:1420-1423.
• [23]Steen RG: Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics 2011, 37:688-692.
• [24]CrossMark Support Site. [http://crossmarksupport.crossref.org/ webcite]
• [25]Fang FC, Casadevall A: Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infect Immun 2011, 79:3855-3859.