Decullier E. Huot L, Samson G, et al. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Research Notes 2013;6:238
(doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-238)
Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has established guidelines on dealing with retractions in 2009, recommending that they should be issued in case of unreliable findings (misconduct or error), plagiarism or unethical research. The authors analysed retractions published in Medline over a single year period to describe the conformity with COPE retraction guidelines as well as the reasons for retraction and their distribution across countries. They also suggest the use of a standard retraction form with a checklist of major reason.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3691605
(doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-238)
Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has established guidelines on dealing with retractions in 2009, recommending that they should be issued in case of unreliable findings (misconduct or error), plagiarism or unethical research. The authors analysed retractions published in Medline over a single year period to describe the conformity with COPE retraction guidelines as well as the reasons for retraction and their distribution across countries. They also suggest the use of a standard retraction form with a checklist of major reason.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3691605
Comments