Skip to main content

What’s Responsible for the Retraction Boom?

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss whether the seeming increase in the amount of misconduct in science is a real phenomenon, and how the structures and processes of scientific publishing, as well as of the scientific community, may contribute to this.

Keywords

  • scientific integrity
  • retraction

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allison, D. B., Brown, A.W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530 (7588), 27-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bik, E. M., Casadevall, A. & Fang, F. C. (2016). The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications. mBio, 7 (3), e00809- e00816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. B. (2012): A meta-analysis of prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: randomised controlled trials by Fujii et al. compared with other authors. In: Anaesthesia, 67 (10), S. 1365 – 2044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. B. & Loadsman, J. A. (2016). Evidence for non-random sampling in randomised, controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh. Anaesthesia, 72 (1), 17-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), e5738.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 of the United States (PNAS), 109 (42), 17028-17033. Correction (2013): 110 (3), 1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. (2013). Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183 [Blog post]. Retrievable at: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/01/15/retraction-record-broken-again-university-report-should-up-fujii-total-to-183/ [March 15, 2017].

  • McCook, A. (2016). Retractions holding steady at more than 650 in FY2016 [Blog post]. Retrievable at: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/05/retractions-holding-steady-650-fy2016 [March 15, 2017].

  • Saitoh, Y., Sashiyama, H., Oshima, T., Nakata, Y. & Sato, J. (2012). Assessment of neuromuscular block at the orbicularis oris, corrugator supercilii, and adductor pollicis muscles. Journal of Anesthesia, 26 (1), 28-33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Marcus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marcus, A., Oransky, I. (2018). What’s Responsible for the Retraction Boom?. In: Dobrick, F., Fischer, J., Hagen, L. (eds) Research Ethics in the Digital Age. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12909-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12909-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-12908-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-12909-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)