Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Retraction of Publication as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.

Journal editors are among those who must face the issue of when and how to correct the scientific literature when an allegation or finding of scientific misconduct occurs. The author describes an instructive incident of tainted data and a subsequent allegation of misconduct that involved a federally-sponsored study where some data had been fabricated. The journals that had published or were considering articles from that study were not told about the problem for almost four years after the initial allegations of misconduct. The author then provides information to throw light on such questions as: Who has the responsibility to ensure that a manuscript that may contain falsified or fabricated data is not published? Who has the responsibility to correct the literature when falsified or fabricated data have been published, and at what point should that correction be made? For example, should it be when the problem of data is suspected or when it is proven? And if proven, proven by whom? How is the larger scientific community to be notified about the problem? Where and when should the correction or retraction appear, and what should it tell readers about the basis for the retraction or correction? She also presents data from 25 cases to show the various lengths of time involved in correcting the literature after allegations of research misconduct had been made. The author concludes that the record shows how disconnected journal editors have been from the scientific misconduct process and that expectations differ regarding the obligations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies about informing a journal when an allegation of scientific misconduct is made about a publication in its pages. The 25 cases show that substantial delays in notifying the journal and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are endemic, and that all parties have far to go in appreciating their roles in maintaining the integrity of the biomedical literature.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1998

Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications.

CONTEXT: This study examined the impact of retracted articles on biomedical communication. OBJECTIVE: To examine publications identified in the biomedical literature as having been retracted, to ascertain why and by whom the publications were retracted and to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work. DESIGN: A search of MEDLINE from 1966 through August 1997 for articles that had been retracted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of retractions and citations to articles after retraction. RESULTS: A total of 235 articles had been retracted. Error was acknowledged in relation to 91 articles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was given in 20. Of the 235 articles, 190 were retracted by some or all of the authors; 45 were retracted by a person or organization other than the author(s). The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n = 17) or implicitly (n = 263) as though it were valid research. CONCLUSION: Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid work in the biomedical literature after publication of the retraction; these citations signal potential problems for biomedical science.

Periodicals as Topic↗
PubMed1992

The characteristics of medical retraction notices.

During the past twenty years, more than ninety retraction notices have been published in biomedical journals. These retractions constitute a unique body of literature that biomedical researchers, bibliographers, and librarians must monitor to reduce scientific use of retracted, invalid papers. An analysis of medical retraction notices shows that very few are prominent in style, format, or placement, in spite of authoritative publication standards formulated by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Although researchers are ultimately responsible for the validity of the information they cite in their own publications, biomedical librarians are in a unique position to educate their patrons regarding retracted papers.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1990

Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication.

To gain a better understanding of the problem of dealing with publications whose integrity is subsequently challenged, experience in a well-documented case of research fraud was reviewed. At the University of California San Diego, a faculty committee evaluated 135 publications of Robert Slutsky, MD, and reported to each of the corresponding 30 journals whether each article was valid, questionable, or fraudulent, requesting publication of the criteria and the conclusions. Journals responded slowly to this request; half required additional letters over a 2-year period to elicit a reply. Of the 13 journals that had only valid articles, 5 printed a statement to that effect. Statements concerning 46 of 60 nonvalid articles were eventually published. Journals' inconsistent identification of published statements made it difficult to retrieve them by electronic searching. Only 7 notices covering 15 articles were found by searching under the Medical Subject Heading "Retraction of Publication"; scanning the entire bibliography retrieved 18 articles with retraction notations. A poll showed that journals rarely have written procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct; in our experience, journals were reluctant to accept authorized retractions or corrections when coauthors failed to act.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2000

Ethical responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors.

Scientific misconduct, which is neither new nor unique, is prevalent in the medical literature. Although fabrication of data obviously is unethical, and although ethical rules of conduct for certain aspects of medical studies, such as informed consent, are theoretically accepted worldwide, numerous authors do not adhere to ethical rules of conduct. Ethically, the editor is responsible, as a gatekeeper, for ensuring that material to be published is accurate and valid. Thus, the editor's main responsibility is to the reader. Nonetheless, the editor also must serve the author by selecting unbiased reviewers and by providing the assurance that material will be selected for publication based solely on the scientific quality of the material. Peer reviewers are obligated to maintain a posture of confidentiality throughout the review process. Authors are responsible for adequate planning before undertaking a study, and for safeguarding patients' rights during the study. The author must read all cited references completely, strive for accuracy, and be certain that the material reported is valid, because it will be used in the treatment of patients. Hopefully, awareness of the ethical problems related to medical writing will provide a clearer understanding of the ethical aspects of medical writing.

Authorship↗