, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 573–587 | Cite as

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media



Better understanding of research and publishing misconduct can improve strategies to mitigate their occurrence. In this study, we examine various trends among 2,375 articles retracted due to misconduct in all scholarly fields. Proportions of articles retracted due to “publication misconduct” (primarily plagiarism and duplicate publication) or “distrust data or interpretations” (primarily research artifacts and unexplained irreproducibility of data) differ significantly between PubMed (35 and 59 %, respectively) and non-PubMed (56 and 27 %) articles and between English- and non-English-speaking author affiliation countries. Retraction rates due to any form of misconduct, adjusted for the size of the literature in different disciplines, vary from 0.22 per 100,000 articles in the Humanities to 7.58 in Medicine and 7.69 in Chemistry. The annual rate of article retractions due to misconduct has increased exponentially since 2001, and the percentage of all retractions involving misconduct allegations has grown from 18.5–29.2 % for each year from 1990–1993 to 55.8–71.9 % for each year from 2007–2010. Despite these increases, the prominence of research integrity in the news media has not changed appreciably over the past 20 years. Articles retracted due to misconduct are found in all major scholarly disciplines. The higher rate of plagiarism among authors from non-English speaking countries may diminish if institutions improved their support for the writing of English manuscripts by their scholars. The training of junior scholars on proper codes of research (and publishing) conduct should be embraced by all disciplines, not just by biomedical fields where the perception of misconduct is high.


Research misconduct Plagiarism PubMed Non-PubMed Scholarly disciplines 



Authors wish to thank the reviewers and the editor for their review of the manuscript and provided the constructive comments. We would like to thank the people in the AGIS laboratory at University of California Davis for the discussion at earlier stage of the manuscript. We also wish to acknowledge Wenzhou Medical College and Wenzhou City (No. 89207011, 20082780125) and Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province (No. 2008C03009) China for partial financial support for this project.

Supplementary material

11192_2012_920_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 10 kb)


  1. Abbott, A., & Graf, P. (2003). Survey reveals mixed feelings over scientific misconduct. Nature, 424, 117.Google Scholar
  2. Alfredo, K., & Hart, H. (2011). The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon, (2010). Scientific fraud: action needed in China. Lancet, 375, 94.Google Scholar
  4. Anon, (2011). They did a bad bad thing. Nature Chemistry, 3, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (published online before print,
  7. Fu, H. Z., Chuang, K. Y., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). Characteristics of research in China assessed with essential science indicators. Scientometrics, 88, 841–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghazinoory, S., Ghazinorri, M., & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2011). Iranian academia: evolution after revolution and plagiarism as a disorder. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godlee, F., & Wager, E. (2012). Research misconduct in the UK. BMJ, 344, d8357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenbaum, D. (2009). Research fraud: methods for dealing with an issue that negatively impacts society’s view of science. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 10, 61–129.Google Scholar
  12. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7, e44118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kintisch, E. (2005). Researcher faces prison for fraud in NIH grant applications and papers. Science, 307, 1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Research misconduct: the search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lieb, I. (2004). Article leads to withdrawal of doctorate. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 43, 2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahbuba, D., & Rousseau, R. (2012). Scientific research in the Indian subcontinent: selected trends and indicators 1973–2007 comparing Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka with India, the local giant. Scientometrics, 84, 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: a case study. PLoS Med, 7, e1000318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rada, R. F. (2005). A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients. The Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7, e18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rada, R. F. (2007). Retractions, press releases and newspaper coverage. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24, 210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rasmussen LS, Yentis SM, Gibbs N, Kawamoto M, Shafer SL, et al. (2012) Joint editors-in-chief request for determination regarding papers published by Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii. (accessed 23 Apr 2012).
  21. Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2011). The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Accountability in Research, 18, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sotudeh, H. (2012). How sustainable a scientifically developing country could be in its specialties? The case of Iran’s publications in SCI in the 21st century compared to the 1980s. Scientometrics, 91, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stanbrook, M. B., MacDonald, N. E., Flegel, K., & Hebert, P. C. (2011). The need for new mechanisms to ensure research integrity. CMAJ, 183, E766.Google Scholar
  24. Steen, R. G. (2011a). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steen, R. G. (2011b). Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 688–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steneck, N. H. (2002). Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 1–16). Washington: Office of Research Integrity.Google Scholar
  27. Tilden, S. J. (2010). Incarceration, restitution, and lifetime debarment: legal consequences of scientific misconduct in the Eric Poehlman case. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 737–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tramer, M. R. (2011). The Boldt debacle. Eur J Anaesthes, 28, 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiggins, M. N. (2010). A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs. Academic Medicine, 85, 1470–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Woolley, K. L., Lew, R. A., Stretton, S., Ely, J. A., Bramich, N. J., et al. (2011). Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 27, 1175–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wenzhou Medical CollegeWenzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations