Skip to main content
Article
Empirical developments in retraction
Center for Human Modeling and Simulation
  • B K Redman, Wayne State University
  • H N Yarandi, Wayne State University
  • Jon F Merz, University of Pennsylvania
Document Type
Journal Article
Date of this Version
1-1-2008
Comments
Reprinted from:
Empirical developments in retraction. B K Redman, H N Yarandi, and J F Merz. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 807-809.

DOI:10.1136/jme.2007.023069
URL: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/11/807

Abstract
This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm 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.
Citation Information
B K Redman, H N Yarandi and Jon F Merz. "Empirical developments in retraction" (2008)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jon_merz/8/