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

Abstract

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 In only 25.8 % of citing articles was it clearly stated that Reuben’s work had been retracted.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shafer, S. L. (2009). Tattered threads. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 108(5), 1361–1363. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181a16846.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wise, J. (2013). Boldt: The great pretender. BMJ, 346, f1738. doi:10.1136/bmj.f1738.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This project was supported by institutional funding.

Additional information

In this study we examine the number of citations of Scott S. Reuben’s articles within 5 years of their retraction.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I.S. & Sandner-Kiesling, A. Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 1063–1072 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9680-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Retraction of publication
  • Scientific misconduct
  • Ethics research
  • Scott S. Reuben