Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

Отзыв публикаций из научной литературы: увеличивается ли распространённость научного мошенничества?
R. Grant Steen
2010-12-24

PubMed databasedata fabricationresearch fraudscientific paper retractionstext plagiarism
BACKGROUND: Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing. METHODS: The reasons for retracting 742 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Reasons for retraction were initially dichotomised as fraud or error and then analysed to determine specific reasons for retraction. RESULTS: Error was more common than fraud (73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% retracted for fraud). Eight reasons for retraction were identified; the most common reason was scientific mistake in 234 papers (31.5%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were retracted for ambiguous reasons. Fabrication (including data plagiarism) was more common than text plagiarism. Total papers retracted per year have increased sharply over the decade (r=0.96; p<0.001), as have retractions specifically for fraud (r=0.89; p<0.001). Journals now reach farther back in time to retract, both for fraud (r=0.87; p<0.001) and for scientific mistakes (r=0.95; p<0.001). Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader; 31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as retracted in any way. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of misconduct appear to be higher than in the past. This may reflect either a real increase in the incidence of fraud or a greater effort on the part of journals to police the literature. However, research bias is rarely cited as a reason for retraction.
1
Among 742 PubMed-indexed English research papers retracted from 2000–2010, error or undisclosed reasons accounted for 73.5% of retractions, compared with 26.6% attributed to fraud.
2
Annual retractions increased sharply over the decade, including fraud-related retractions (r=0.89; p<0.001), but this may reflect either rising misconduct or stronger journal oversight.
3
Fabrication, including data plagiarism, was more common than text plagiarism among fraud-related retractions.
4
Journals increasingly retracted older papers for both fraud and scientific mistakes, yet 31.8% of retracted papers were not visibly identified as retracted.
5
Research bias was rarely cited as a reason for retraction.
6
Scientific mistake was the most common specific reason for retraction, affecting 234 papers (31.5%), while 134 papers (18.1%) had ambiguous reasons.

English-language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010

Patterns, reasons, and temporal trends of retraction, particularly the incidence of research fraud versus error

Publication Details
Publication Date
2010-12-24
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
R. Grant Steen
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%