Empirical developments in retraction

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Penn collection
Center for Human Modeling and Simulation
Degree type
Discipline
Subject
Funder
Grant number
License
Copyright date
Distributor
Related resources
Author
Redman, B K
Yarandi, H N
Contributor
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.

Advisor
Date Range for Data Collection (Start Date)
Date Range for Data Collection (End Date)
Digital Object Identifier
Series name and number
Publication date
2008-01-01
Journal title
Volume number
Issue number
Publisher
Publisher DOI
Journal Issue
Comments
Reprinted from: Empirical developments in retraction. B K Redman, H N Yarandi, and J F Merz. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 807-809. DOI:10.1136/jme.2007.023069 URL: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/11/807
Recommended citation
Collection