Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 49–64 | Cite as

Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses: New Models for Handling Retractions

  • Kathleen MontgomeryEmail author
  • Amalya L. Oliver
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the growing problem of retractions in the scientific literature of publications that contain bad data (i.e., fabricated, falsified, or containing error), also called “false science.” While the problem is particularly acute in the biomedical literature because of the life-threatening implications when treatment recommendations and decisions are based on false science, it is relevant for any knowledge domain, including the social sciences, law, and education. Yet current practices for handling retractions are seen as inadequate. We use the metaphor of a virus to illustrate how such studies can spread and contaminate the knowledge system, when they continue to be treated as valid. We suggest drawing from public health models designed to prevent the spread of biological viruses and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the current governance model of professional self-regulation with a proposed public health governance model. The paper concludes by considering the value of adding a triple-helix model that brings industry into the university-state governance mechanisms and incorporates bibliometric capabilities needed for a holistic treatment of the retraction process.

Keywords

Knowledge management Governance False science Bad data Infection Contact reporting Retraction Triple helix 

References

  1. Azoulay, Pierre, Jeffrey L. Furman, Joshua L. Krieger, and Fiona Murray. 2015. Retractions. Review of Economics and Statistics 97: 1118–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Budd, John M., Zach C. Coble, and Katherine M. Anderson. 2011. Retracted publications in biomedicine: Cause for concern. In Association of College and Research Libraries Conference Proceedings, 390–395. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.htm. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2009. Retraction Guidelines. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  5. Cornelissen, Joep P., and Mario Kafouros. 2008. Metaphors and theory building in organization theory: What determines the impact of a metaphor on theory? British Journal of Management 19: 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, Philip M. 2012. The persistence of error: A study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association 100: 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decoteau, Claire Laurier, and Kelly Underman. 2015. Adjudicating non-knowledge in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Social Studies of Science 45: 471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deer, Brian. 2011. Secrets of the MMR scare: How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. British Medical Journal 2011: 342.Google Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 292: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, Ferric C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedland, Roger, and Robert Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Walter Powell, and Paul DiMaggio, 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Furman, Jeffrey L., Kyle Jensen, and Fiona Murray. 2012. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy 41: 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garud, Raghu, Cynthia Hardy, and Steve Maguire. 2007. Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies 18: 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godlee, Fiona. 2011. The fraud behind the MMR scare. British Medical Journal 342: d.22.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, Gardiner. 2010. Journal retracts 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines. The New York Times, 2 Feb, A9.Google Scholar
  17. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 2014. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http:www.icmje.org. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  18. Jermier, John M., and Linda C. Forbes. 2011. Metaphor as the foundation of organizational studies: Images of organization and beyond. Organization and Environment 24: 444–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leahey, Erin, and Kathleen Montgomery. 2011. The meaning of regulation in a changing academic profession. In The American Academic Profession: Changing Forms and Functions, ed. Joseph Hermanowicz, 295–311. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, Loet, and Henry Etzkowitz. 1996. Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy 23: 279–286.Google Scholar
  21. Marcus, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2014. Retractions are coming thick and fast: It’s time for publishers to act. The Guardian, 14 July.Google Scholar
  22. Marcus, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2015. What’s behind big science frauds? The New York Times, 22 May, A19.Google Scholar
  23. McNutt, Marcia. 2015. Editorial retraction. Science. www.sciencemag.org/content/early/recent. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  24. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Montgomery, Kathleen, and Amalya Oliver. 2009. Shifts in guidelines for ethical scientific conduct: How public and private organizations create and changes norms of research integrity. Social Studies of Science 39: 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, Gareth. 1986. Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Naik, Gautam. 2011. Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug, Health.Google Scholar
  28. Oransky, Ivan. 2014. http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/ivan-oransky-md/). Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  29. Oransky, Ivan, and Adam Marcus. 2010. Retraction Watch: Why write a blog about retractions? http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/ Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  30. Pfeifer, Mark P., and Gwendolyn L. Snodgrass. 1990. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA 263: 1420–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rovik, Kjell Arne. 2011. From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies 32: 631–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samp, Jennifer, Glen Schumock, and A. Simon Pickard. 2012. Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy 32: 586–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steen, R. Grant. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics 37: 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steen, R. Grant, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric C. Fang. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLOS One 8: e68397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tavernise, Sabrina, and Catherine Saint Louis. 2015. Vaccine issue arises at Republican debate, to doctors’ dismay. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/health/republican-presidential-debate-vaccines.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  36. Thornton, Patricia, and William Ocasio. 2008. Institutional logics. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, eds. Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kirsten Sahlin-Andersson, and Roy Suddaby, 99–129. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Noorden, Richard. 2011. The trouble with retractions. Nature 478: 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Raan, Anthony. 2015. Dormitory of physical and engineering sciences: Sleeping beauties may be sleeping innovations. PLOS One 10: e0139786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.The Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations