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 In only 25.8 % of citing articles was it clearly stated that Reuben's work had been retracted.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

The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct

“…Two‐thirds of these retractions have resulted from author misconduct . In many instances, these articles continue to be cited despite being flawed , carrying the potential for future research to be based on false foundations. Several studies have documented the collective landscape of scientific retractions over the years, and researchers in medical specialties such as radiology , general surgery , orthopaedics and neurosurgery have described the extent of the phenomenon in their fields.…”

An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii

“…However, retraction notices often do not follow this published guidance . Incomplete or delayed retractions may prolong the persistent citation of fraudulent or unreliable papers .…”

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

“…Ego‐network analysis shows decreasing trends in citations post‐retraction (Bornemann‐Cimenti et al, ), but also that these citations still recognized AR “positively” (Bar‐Ilan & Halevi, ) as legitimate work. We also found that citations post‐retraction came from articles affiliated with a different country than the AR .…”

“…There is a significant body of research about retraction of scientific publications. These articles analyze the characteristics of retracted articles such as retraction counts by disciplines and/or countries, reasons for retraction, cited half-lives, and self-citing dynamics (Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017;Bornemann-Cimenti, Szilagyi, & Sandner-Kiesling, 2016;Redman et al, 2008). While these studies examined characteristics of retracted articles at great lengths, more attention could be given to the characteristics of citing articles.…”