@article{natureRetractionChallenges2014,
  title = {Retraction Challenges},
  author = {{Nature}},
  year = {2014},
  month = oct,
  volume = {514},
  pages = {5},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/514005a},
  abstract = {[Excerpt] A key responsibility of any journal is to correct erroneous information that it has published, and as quickly as possible.

[\textbackslash n] Easily said! It is straightforward enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it becomes clear after publication that the conclusions are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate -- and things can then get a lot more challenging. [...]

[\textbackslash n] That is why the literature of retractions in high-impact journals might be skewed towards misconduct that has been proved through investigations. But all praise to the authors who decide to behave honourably. Where authors make it clear that nothing more than an honest error was involved, their retraction should bring them credit.

[\textbackslash n] Where misconduct -- a deliberate attempt to deceive -- has been involved, things tend to get complicated. [...] But whatever the obstacles, the duty to retract a demonstrably false paper remains paramount.

[\textbackslash n] [...]},
  journal = {Nature},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13380258,~to-add-doi-URL,policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty,research-management,rewarding-best-research-practices,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-misconduct,uncertainty-propagation},
  lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13380258},
  number = {7520}
}

{"_id":"6eosS28RJB2rjwhsw","bibbaseid":"nature-retractionchallenges-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-06-22T15:25:14.997Z","title":"Retraction Challenges","author_short":["Nature"],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Retraction Challenges","author":[{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Nature"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2014","month":"October","volume":"514","pages":"5","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/514005a","abstract":"[Excerpt] A key responsibility of any journal is to correct erroneous information that it has published, and as quickly as possible. [\\n] Easily said! It is straightforward enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it becomes clear after publication that the conclusions are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate – and things can then get a lot more challenging. [...] [\\n] That is why the literature of retractions in high-impact journals might be skewed towards misconduct that has been proved through investigations. But all praise to the authors who decide to behave honourably. Where authors make it clear that nothing more than an honest error was involved, their retraction should bring them credit. [\\n] Where misconduct – a deliberate attempt to deceive – has been involved, things tend to get complicated. [...] But whatever the obstacles, the duty to retract a demonstrably false paper remains paramount. [\\n] [...]","journal":"Nature","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13380258,~to-add-doi-URL,policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty,research-management,rewarding-best-research-practices,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-misconduct,uncertainty-propagation","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-13380258","number":"7520","bibtex":"@article{natureRetractionChallenges2014,\n title = {Retraction Challenges},\n author = {{Nature}},\n year = {2014},\n month = oct,\n volume = {514},\n pages = {5},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/514005a},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] A key responsibility of any journal is to correct erroneous information that it has published, and as quickly as possible.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Easily said! It is straightforward enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it becomes clear after publication that the conclusions are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate -- and things can then get a lot more challenging. [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] That is why the literature of retractions in high-impact journals might be skewed towards misconduct that has been proved through investigations. But all praise to the authors who decide to behave honourably. Where authors make it clear that nothing more than an honest error was involved, their retraction should bring them credit.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Where misconduct -- a deliberate attempt to deceive -- has been involved, things tend to get complicated. [...] But whatever the obstacles, the duty to retract a demonstrably false paper remains paramount.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]},\n journal = {Nature},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13380258,~to-add-doi-URL,policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty,research-management,rewarding-best-research-practices,science-ethics,scientific-communication,scientific-misconduct,uncertainty-propagation},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13380258},\n number = {7520}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Nature"],"key":"natureRetractionChallenges2014","id":"natureRetractionChallenges2014","bibbaseid":"nature-retractionchallenges-2014","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13380258","~to-add-doi-URL","policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty","research-management","rewarding-best-research-practices","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-misconduct","uncertainty-propagation"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["retraction","challenges","nature"],"keywords":["policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty","research-management","rewarding-best-research-practices","science-ethics","scientific-communication","scientific-misconduct","uncertainty-propagation","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13380258","~to-add-doi-url"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}