Supplementary Files
How to Cite
Downloads
Métricas Alternativas
Dimensions
Abstract
Informatics tools have enabled the detection of various types of misconduct regarding research studies in scientific literature. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (ORI), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Retraction Watch and countries’ academies of science sponsor courses, seminars and research to promote values such as honesty, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, responsibility and skepticism in scientific communication. We analyzed here 1,373 articles recorded in PubMed from 1959 to 2015 with open access to their text and retraction notes. We observed that articles retracted from 2010 to 2015 almost duplicated those accumulated during the previous 44 years; in 32.8% of them retraction was due to admitted error; 23.7% to plagiarism or self-plagiarism, and 19.7% to data falsification or fabrication. Thirty-seven articles were retracted during the first four months of 2015 due to false review or author influence on reviewers, which represents a research misconduct not detected in previous studies. The percentages of open access retracted articles published per year varied from 0.0072% (1/13,861) in 1966 to 0.0472% (213/451,021) in 2013. The percentage of articles retracted compared to articles published from 54 countries throughout the world during the same period (1959-2015) varied from 0.0042% (1/23,761) to 0.2732% (1/366). The amount of articles retracted signed by more than 10 authors was lower than that for 6 to10 or 1 to 5 authors. We found that 794 (57.8%) articles were retracted before the first two years and 579 (42.2%) more than two years after their publication. The retraction of 714 (52%) of the articles was requested by the authors, of 485 (35.3%), by the editors, and of 70 (5.1%) by mutual agreement; 80.8% (1,110/1,373) of the retracted articles had been cited. We discuss here the importance of promotion, education, retraction and correction of scientific literature as a contribution to scientific integrity and society’s confidence in the scientific community. © 2016. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Ex. Fis. Nat. All rights reserved.References
Acosta, O. & Celis, J. (2014). The emergence of doctoral programs in the Colombian higher education system: Trends and challenges. Prospects. 44 (3): 463-481. doi:10.1007/s11125-014-9310-5
Agresti, A. & Coull, B.A. (1998). Approximate is better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions. The American Statistician. 52 (2): 119-126. doi: 10.2307/2685469
Atlas, M.C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 92(2): 242-250.
Avey, M.T., Fenwick, N., Griffin, G. (2015). The use of systematic reviews and reporting guidelines to advance the implementation of the 3rd Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 54 (2):153-162.
Blyth, C.R., & Hutchinson, D.W. (1960). Table of Neyman-shortest unbiased confidence intervals for the binomial parametert. Biométrica. 47 (3-4): 381-391. doi: 10.2307/2333308
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 342 (6154): 61-65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Bretscher, A. (2013). Magazine or journal—what is the difference? The role of the monitoring editor. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 24 (7): 887-889. doi:10.1091/mbc.E12-12-0899
Budd, J.M., Sievert, M.E., Schultz, T.R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 280 (3): 296 -298. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.296
Cañedo, R. (2009). Cuba, Iberoamérica y la producción científica en salud en la base de datos PubMed en el periodo 1999-2008. ACIMED. 20 (1): 1-27.
Carafoli, E. (2015). Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei. 26 (3): 369-382. doi:10.1007/s12210-015-0415-4
Charlier, P., Bridoux, V., Watier, L., Menetrier, M.,Grandmaison, G., Herve, C. (2011). Ethics requirements and impact factor. Journal of Medical Ethics. 38 (4): 253-255. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100174
COPE. (2009). Retraction guidelines. Fecha de consulta: 24 de abril de 2015. Disponible en:http://publicationethics.org/files retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf.
COPE. (2014). What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document. Fecha de consulta: 24 de abril de 2015. Disponible en: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0.pdf.
COPE. (2015). COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes. Disponible en: Fecha de consulta:23 de abril de 2015. http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-reviewprocesses#_blank.
Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. (2011). Education: The PhD factory. Nature. 472 (7343):276-279. doi: 10.1038/472276ª
Das, A.K. (2016). ‘Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts:Emerging issues, potential threats, andpossible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 72 (2):172-4. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014.
Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10 (12): e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
Fang, F.C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Editorial: Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity. 79 (10):3855-3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11
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. 110 (3):17028-17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Fulton, A.S., Coates, A.M., Williams, M.T., Howe, P.R., Hill, A.M. (2015). Persistent citation of the only published randomised controlled trial of Omega-3 supplementation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease six years after its retraction. Publications. 3 (1): 17-26. doi: 10.3390/publications3010017
Grieneisen, M.L. & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e44118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
Haug C.J. (2015). Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. The New England Journal of Medicine. 373 (25): 2393-2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330
Hermerén, G. (2008). Integridad y mala conducta en el ámbito investigador. Sociedad Española de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular. 156: 5-10.
Jinha, A.E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing. 23(3): 258-263. doi: 10.1087/20100308
Lu S.F., Jin J.Z., Uzzi B., Jones B. (2013). The retraction penalty:Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports. 3:3146. DOI: 10.1038/srep03146
Masic, I. (2012). Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Informatica Medica. 20 (4): 208-213. doi:10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213
Norvaiša, R. (2011). Journal impact factor and academic ethics. Evolution of Science and Technology. 3 (2): 120-128. doi:10.3846/est.2011.10
Office of Research Integrity. (2014). Misconduct. Disponible en:http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct. Fecha de consulta:9 de septiembre de 2015.
Partridge, L. (2015). Celebrating 350 years of Philosophical Transactions: Life science papers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 370:(20140380). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0380
Quesemberry, C.P. & Hurst, D.C. (1964). Large sample simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions.
Technometrics. 6 (2): 191-195. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1964.10490163
Resnik, D.B., Wagner, E., Kissling, G.E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 103 (3), 136-138. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006
Resnik, D.B. & Stewart, C.N. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Account Res. 19 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948.
Sabir, H., Kumbhare, S., Parate, A., Kumar, R., Das, S. (2015). Scientific misconduct: A perspective from India. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 18 (2): 177-184. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9603-8
Shewan, L.G. & Coats, A.J.S. (2010). Ethics in the authorship and publishing of scientific articles. International Journal of Cardiology. 144 (1): 1-2. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.07.030
Sistema Nacional de Instituciones de Educación Superior-SNIES. (2016). Módulo de consultas. Fecha de consulta: 26 de mayo de 2016. Disponible en:http://snies.mineducacion.gov.co/consultasnies programa#. Fecha de consulta: 26 de mayo de 2016.
Sox, H.C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine. 144 (8): 609-13. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123
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.
The Lancet. (2015a). Editorial: China´s medical research integrity questioned. The Lancet. 385 (9976):1361. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60700-0
The Lancet. (2015b). Editorial: Correcting the scientific literature:Retraction and republication. The Lancet. 385 (9966): 394.doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60137-4
The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations:Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. ISBN:978-0-85403-890-9. The Royal Society, Londres, Inglaterra.113 pp.:
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature. 478 (7367): 26-28. doi: 10.1038/478026a
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions:Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Disponible en:http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf.Fecha de consulta: 2 de enero de 2016.
Wager, E. & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008.
Journal of Medical Ethics. 37 (9): 567-570. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2016 Journal of the Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences