Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1063–1072 | Cite as

Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements

  • Helmar Bornemann-CimentiEmail author
  • Istvan S. Szilagyi
  • Andreas Sandner-Kiesling
Original Paper


In 2009, Scott S. Reuben was convicted of fabricating data, which lead to 25 of his publications being retracted. Although it is clear that the perpetuation of retracted articles negatively effects the appraisal of evidence, the extent to which retracted literature is cited had not previously been investigated. In this study, to better understand the perpetuation of discredited research, we examine the number of citations of Reuben’s articles within 5 years of their retraction. Citations of Reuben’s retracted articles were assessed using the Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters, NY). All citing articles were screened to discriminate between articles in which Reuben’s work was quoted as retracted, and articles in which his data was wrongly cited without any note of the retraction status. Twenty of Reuben’s publications had been cited 274 times between 2009 and 1024. In 2014, 45 % of the retracted articles had been cited at least once. In only 25.8 % of citing articles was it clearly stated that Reuben’s work had been retracted. Annual citations decreased from 108 in 2009 to 18 in 2014; however, the percentage of publications correctly indicating the retraction status also declined. The percentage of citations in top-25 %-journals, as well as the percentage of citations in journals from Reuben’s research area, declined sharply after 2009. Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben’s articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations.


Retraction of publication Scientific misconduct Ethics research Scott S. Reuben 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


This project was supported by institutional funding.


  1. Bornemann-Cimenti, H., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2014). Avoiding perpetuating fraudulent publications in addendum to Sagit M et al.: Efficacy of a single preoperative dose of pregabalin for postoperative pain after septoplasty. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 25(2), 717. doi: 10.1097/01.scs.0000436679.89690.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornemann-Cimenti, H., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2015). Bringing retracted papers into focus. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 8(1), 81. doi: 10.3342/ceo.2015.8.1.81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabbolet, M. J. (2014). Scientific misconduct: Three forms that directly harm others as the modus operandi of Mill’s tyranny of the prevailing opinion. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 41–54. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, P. 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(3), 184–189. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decullier, E., Huot, L., Samson, G., & Maisonneuve, H. (2013). Visibility of retractions: A cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Research Notes, 6, 238. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenach, J. C. (2009). Data fabrication and article retraction: How not to get lost in the woods. Anesthesiology, 110(5), 955–956. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a06bf9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elia, N., Wager, E., & Tramer, M. R. (2014). Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: A descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 9(1), e85846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109(42), 17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lammey, R. (2014). How to apply CrossMark and FundRef via CrossRef extensible markup language. Science Editing, 1(2), 84–90. doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lelgemann, M., & Sauerland, S. (2010). Fraudulent studies, unpublished data and their effect on the development of guidelines and evidence-based recommendations. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 104(4), 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Madlock-Brown, C. R., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 127–137. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marret, E., Elia, N., Dahl, J. B., McQuay, H. J., Moiniche, S., Moore, R. A., et al. (2009). Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: Lessons from the Reuben case. Anesthesiology, 111(6), 1279–1289. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181c14c3d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rama-Maceiras, P., Ingelmo, I. I., Fabregas, J. N., & Hernandez-Palazon, J. (2009). Fraudulent pain research: A hurt so deep nothing can alleviate it. Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion, 56(6), 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ren, T., Ding, L., & He, Z. (2014). Factors affecting chronic pain and increases of analgesic drug consumption after knee arthroplasty. Pain, 155(12), 2720–2721. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rittner, H. L., Kranke, P., Schafer, M., Roewer, N., & Brack, A. (2009). What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology. Anaesthesist, 58(12), 1199–1209. doi: 10.1007/s00101-009-1637-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Samp, J. C., Schumock, G. T., & Pickard, A. S. (2012). Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy, 32(7), 586–595. doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01100.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shafer, S. L. (2009). Tattered threads. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 108(5), 1361–1363. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181a16846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One, 8(7), e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stone, L. S., German, J. P., Kitto, K. F., Fairbanks, C. A., & Wilcox, G. L. (2014). Morphine and clonidine combination therapy improves therapeutic window in mice: Synergy in antinociceptive but not in sedative or cardiovascular effects. PLoS One, 9(10), e109903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tramer, M. R. (2013). The Fujii story: A chronicle of naive disbelief. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 30(5), 195–198. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328360a0db.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50(6), 532–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watkins, A. A., Johnson, T. V., Shrewsberry, A. B., Nourparvar, P., Madni, T., Watkins, C. J., et al. (2014). Ice packs reduce postoperative midline incision pain and narcotic use: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 219(3), 511–517. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wise, J. (2013). Boldt: The great pretender. BMJ, 346, f1738. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright, K., & McDaid, C. (2011). Reporting of article retractions in bibliographic databases and online journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99(2), 164–167. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations