Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 5–24 | Cite as

Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct

  • Anne Victoria Neale
  • Justin Northrup
  • Rhonda Dailey
  • Ellen Marks
  • Judith Abrams
Original Paper


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.


Bibliometric analysis Biomedical publishing Publication ethics Scientific misconduct Retraction of publication 



This research was supported by the Research on Research Integrity Program, an ORI/NIH collaboration, grant # R01 NS44487.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, A. (1988). First scientific fraud conviction. Nature, 335, 389.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angell, M., & Kassirer, J. P. (1994). Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1448–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 242–250.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonetta, L. (2006). The aftermath of scientific fraud. Cell, 124, 873–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Couzin, J., & Unger, K. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, 312, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culliton, B. J. (1983). Coping with fraud: The Darsee case. Science, 220, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman, P. J. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1416–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holden, C. (1987). NIMH finds a case of “serious misconduct”. Science, 235, 1566–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kotzin, S., & Schuyler, P. L. (1989). NLM’s practices for handling errata and retractions. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 77, 337–342.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marwick, C. (1992). Federal health officials continue to reorganize offices for investigating scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCook, A. (2005). Retraction sparks lawsuit. The Scientist, 6, 1012–1021.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Office of Research Integrity. (2006). [website]. Available at: Accessed December 6, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1420–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds, S. M. (2004). ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002. Clinical Trials, 1, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schiermeier, Q. (1998). Authors slow to retract ‘fraudulent’ papers. Nature, 393, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Unger, K., & Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure. Science, 312, 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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: Accessed April 11, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Victoria Neale
    • 1
  • Justin Northrup
    • 1
  • Rhonda Dailey
    • 1
  • Ellen Marks
    • 2
  • Judith Abrams
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine and Public Health SciencesWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Shiffman Medical LibraryWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Integrated Biostatistics UnitWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations