Friday, March 13, 2009

B - Empirical developments in retraction

Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF. Empirical developments in retraction.Journal of Medical Ethics.2008;34:807-809

doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023069

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/11/807


This study confirms that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary.

Thanks to J. Hurtley

No comments: