Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retractions from Scientific Publications

By
-
2
116

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
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. Kermit leads workshops and webinars on the role of humor in psychotherapy and other human services. You can reach him at [email protected].

2 COMMENTS

  2. 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/

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY