Rethinking Retractions

Rethinking Retractions. Brainard, J. 362(6413):390–393.

The largest-ever database of retracted articles suggests the burgeoning numbers reflect better oversight, not a crisis in science. [Excerpt] [...] The data confirm that the absolute number of retractions has risen over the past few decades, from fewer than 100 annually before 2000 to nearly 1000 in 2014. But retractions remain relatively rare: Only about four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted. And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012. In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016. [...] Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading. [] The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40\,% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues. [] About half of all retractions do appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism – behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10\,%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. [...]

@article{brainardRethinkingRetractions2018,
  title = {Rethinking Retractions},
  author = {Brainard, Jeffrey},
  date = {2018-10},
  journaltitle = {Science},
  volume = {362},
  pages = {390--393},
  issn = {1095-9203},
  doi = {10.1126/science.362.6413.390},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390},
  abstract = {The largest-ever database of retracted articles suggests the burgeoning numbers reflect better oversight, not a crisis in science.

[Excerpt] [...] The data confirm that the absolute number of retractions has risen over the past few decades, from fewer than 100 annually before 2000 to nearly 1000 in 2014. But retractions remain relatively rare: Only about four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted. And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012. In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016. [...] Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

[] The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40\,\% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.

[] About half of all retractions do appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism -- behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10\,\%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14648476,epistemology,post-publication-peer-review,publication-errors,reproducibility,reproducible-research,retraction,science-ethics,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct},
  number = {6413}
}

Downloads: 0

{"_id":"vzm95zdw36WFHYM7i","bibbaseid":"brainard-rethinkingretractions","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Brainard, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Rethinking Retractions","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Brainard"],"firstnames":["Jeffrey"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2018-10","journaltitle":"Science","volume":"362","pages":"390–393","issn":"1095-9203","doi":"10.1126/science.362.6413.390","url":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390","abstract":"The largest-ever database of retracted articles suggests the burgeoning numbers reflect better oversight, not a crisis in science. [Excerpt] [...] The data confirm that the absolute number of retractions has risen over the past few decades, from fewer than 100 annually before 2000 to nearly 1000 in 2014. But retractions remain relatively rare: Only about four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted. And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012. In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016. [...] Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading. [] The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40\\,% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues. [] About half of all retractions do appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism – behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10\\,%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14648476,epistemology,post-publication-peer-review,publication-errors,reproducibility,reproducible-research,retraction,science-ethics,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct","number":"6413","bibtex":"@article{brainardRethinkingRetractions2018,\n title = {Rethinking Retractions},\n author = {Brainard, Jeffrey},\n date = {2018-10},\n journaltitle = {Science},\n volume = {362},\n pages = {390--393},\n issn = {1095-9203},\n doi = {10.1126/science.362.6413.390},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390},\n abstract = {The largest-ever database of retracted articles suggests the burgeoning numbers reflect better oversight, not a crisis in science.\n\n[Excerpt] [...] The data confirm that the absolute number of retractions has risen over the past few decades, from fewer than 100 annually before 2000 to nearly 1000 in 2014. But retractions remain relatively rare: Only about four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted. And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012. In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016. [...] Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.\n\n[] The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40\\,\\% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.\n\n[] About half of all retractions do appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism -- behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10\\,\\%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14648476,epistemology,post-publication-peer-review,publication-errors,reproducibility,reproducible-research,retraction,science-ethics,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct},\n number = {6413}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Brainard, J."],"key":"brainardRethinkingRetractions2018","id":"brainardRethinkingRetractions2018","bibbaseid":"brainard-rethinkingretractions","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14648476","epistemology","post-publication-peer-review","publication-errors","reproducibility","reproducible-research","retraction","science-ethics","scientific-community-self-correction","scientific-misconduct"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:03.070Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14648476","epistemology","post-publication-peer-review","publication-errors","reproducibility","reproducible-research","retraction","science-ethics","scientific-community-self-correction","scientific-misconduct"],"search_terms":["rethinking","retractions","brainard"],"title":"Rethinking Retractions","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}