Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (“Findings of Scientific Misconduct”) or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the “comment” field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide “Findings of Scientific Misconduct”, leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0–592). Researchers should be alert to “Comments” linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the “Findings of Scientific Misconduct’ reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals.
- Anderson, A. (1988). First scientific fraud conviction. Nature, 335, 389.
- Angell, M., & Kassirer, J. P. (1994). Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1448–1450. CrossRef
- Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 242–250.
- Bonetta, L. (2006). The aftermath of scientific fraud. Cell, 124, 873–875. CrossRef
- Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 296–297. CrossRef
- Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., Schultz, T. R., & Scoville, C. (1999). Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87, 437–443.
- Couzin, J., & Unger, K. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, 312, 38–43. CrossRef
- Culliton, B. J. (1983). Coping with fraud: The Darsee case. Science, 220, 31–35. CrossRef
- Engler, R. L., Covell, J. W., Friedman, P. J., Kitcher, P. S., & Peters, R. M. (1987). Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 1383–1389. CrossRef
- Friedman, P. J. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1416–1419. CrossRef
- Holden, C. (1987). NIMH finds a case of “serious misconduct”. Science, 235, 1566–1567. CrossRef
- Kotzin, S., & Schuyler, P. L. (1989). NLM’s practices for handling errata and retractions. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 77, 337–342.
- Marwick, C. (1992). Federal health officials continue to reorganize offices for investigating scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 848. CrossRef
- McCook, A. (2005). Retraction sparks lawsuit. The Scientist, 6, 1012–1021.
- Office of Research Integrity. (2006). [website]. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/. Accessed December 6, 2006.
- Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Executive Office of the President; Federal Policy on Research Misconduct; Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy. Federal Register, 65, 76260–76264.
- Parrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74, 221–230. CrossRef
- Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 483–491. CrossRef
- Pascal, C. B. (1999). The history and future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 183–198. CrossRef
- Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1420–1423. CrossRef
- Reynolds, S. M. (2004). ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002. Clinical Trials, 1, 509–516. CrossRef
- Schiermeier, Q. (1998). Authors slow to retract ‘fraudulent’ papers. Nature, 393, 402. CrossRef
- Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 609–613.
- Unger, K., & Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure. Science, 312, 40–41. CrossRef
- United States National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. (2006). Errata, Retraction, Duplicate Publication, Comment, Update and Patient Summary Policy for MEDLINE. Fact Sheet [website]. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed April 11, 2006.
- Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 13, Issue 1 , pp 5-24
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Bibliometric analysis
- Biomedical publishing
- Publication ethics
- Scientific misconduct
- Retraction of publication
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 101 E. Alexandrine, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA
- 2. Shiffman Medical Library, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA
- 3. Integrated Biostatistics Unit, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA