The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature

Pfeifer, Mark; Snodgrass, Gwendolyn L.

doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100140020

Cited by 151 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous investigators have found that many retracted articles continue to be cited as if still valid work (15,16), but others have documented an immediate effect of retraction on citation frequency (17). Although we did not examine this question comprehensively, we found considerable variation among the most frequently cited retracted articles (Table 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Fang

Steen²,

Casadevall

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

965

761

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

15 ps −1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to propagate the equations of motion within the Langevin approach. Periodic boundary conditions were applied to simulate a continuous medium." should instead appear as "A friction coefficient of 10 ps −1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to propagate the equations of motion within the Langevin approach. No boundary conditions were imposed; the system freely evolved in vacuum."These errors do not affect the conclusions of the article.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220833110 15 (M51C was not reported). P hb is the unit-normalized likelihood that a water molecule is simultaneously hydrogen bonded to both the MADH Ser β 56 O and amicyanin His 95 HE2 atoms during our simulations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Fang

Steen²,

Casadevall

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

965

761

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Retracting a paper can be an extremely convoluted, charged process, especially when falsification is implicated. Journals may occasionally be slow and hesitant to retract papers [9][10][11]. There is a need to purge the literature, but a major offense should not be labeled lightly and obviously the perpetrators and their lawyers or even occasionally also their institutions may be resisting this effort [12,13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers

Trikalinos

Εvangelou

Ioannidis

2008

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-The aim was to evaluate papers retracted due to falsification in high-impact journals.Study Design and Setting-We selected articles retracted due to allegations of falsification in January 1, 1980 to March 1, 2006 from journals with impact factor >10 and >30,000 annual citations. We evaluated characteristics of these papers and misconduct-involved authors and assessed whether they correlated with time to retraction. We also compared retracted articles vs. matched nonretracted articles in the same journals.Results-Fourteen eligible journals had 63 eligible retracted articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 28 months; it was 79 months for articles where a senior researcher was implicated in the misconduct vs. 22 months when junior researchers were implicated (logrank P < 0.001). For the 25 implicated authors, the median time from the first publication of a fraudulent paper to the first retraction was 34 months, again with a clear difference according to researcher rank (log-rank P = 0.001). Retracted articles didn't differ from matched nonretracted papers in citations received within 12 months, number of authors, country, funding, or field, but were twofold more likely to have multinational authorship (P = 0.049).Conclusions-Retractions due to falsification can take a long time, especially when senior researchers are implicated. Fraudulent articles are not obviously distinguishable from nonfraudulent ones.

show abstract

“…Retracted articles often continue to be cited as valid work after retraction (e.g., Pfeifer and Snodgrass 1990;Budd et al 1998). The case of J. H. Schön, who was responsible for one of the greatest scientific frauds and scandals of the 20 th century, might serve as an example for this phenomenon.…”

Section: Myth #6: Non Transit Gloria Mundimentioning

confidence: 99%

Seven Myths in Bibliometrics About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies

Glänzel

2008

Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven myths with cognitive and methodological background are analysed for validity. Although, there is always a grain of truth in bibliometrics myths too, the generality of their statements is disproved on the bases of methodological studies and by referring to typical counterexamples. It is shown how and where the logical fallacy lies in the inference from the reality behind the myths leading to the erroneous generalisation of the actual statements.

show abstract

The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature

Cited by 151 publications

References 18 publications

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers

Seven Myths in Bibliometrics About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About