Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retractions from Scientific Publications

2
74

A review in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles in PubMed listed as retracted, shows that 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct rather than error. The authors assert that “incomplete, uninformative, or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.”

Abstract → Fang, F., Steen, R., Casadevall, A., Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 Published online before print October 1, 2012,

Of further interest:
Misconduct Is the Main Cause of Retractions in Life-Sciences Journals (Scientific American)
What he said… (1 Boring Old Man)

Previous articleSocial Disparities in the Prevalence of Mental Disorders
Next articleOryx Cohen – Short Bio
Kermit Cole
Kermit Cole, MFT, founding editor of Mad in America, works in Santa Fe, New Mexico as a couples and family therapist. Inspired by Open Dialogue, he works as part of a team and consults with couples and families that have members identified as patients. His work in residential treatment — largely with severely traumatized and/or "psychotic" clients — led to an appreciation of the power and beauty of systemic philosophy and practice, as the alternative to the prevailing focus on individual pathology. A former film-maker, he has undergraduate and master's degrees in psychology from Harvard University, as well as an MFT degree from the Council for Relationships in Philadelphia. He is a doctoral candidate with the Taos Institute and the Free University of Brussels. You can reach him at [email protected]

2 COMMENTS

  1. Here is the Obama budget plans for NIH, which propose to allow Drug Makers to buy even More Influence in our Government through increased User Fees.

    http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/obama-budget-more-nih-grants-higher-fda-user-fees/81248211/

    “In 2014, user fees would account for 45% of FDA’s total budget, up from 35% in FY 2012. That percentage swells to nearly two-thirds (63.9%) of the $1.292 billion spent on human drugs programs, up from 50% two years earlier”

    45% Owned by Drug and Device makers.

    Here’s what the NIH is funding from 2009 to 2014 estimates: All Dollars Rounded to Millions:

    http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

    Here’s where fraudsters can apply for their share of it:

    http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/

    Here, the Chair of the House Spending Panel says NIH Grants Violate Rules Against Lobbying

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/03/chair-of-house-spending-panel-sa.html

    And Here is a site tracking Scientific Research Retractions, because there’s virtually NO oversight of what happens to those $30 Billion public dollars once NIH approves the grant applications.

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/page/2/