Empirical developments in retraction

Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX


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



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Retraction watch.Udo Schüklenk - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (6):ii-ii.
Retraction.Udo Schüklenk Willem Landman - 2007 - Developing World Bioethics 7 (2):118–118.
Retraction.Udo Schüklenk & Willem Landman - 2007 - Developing World Bioethics 7 (2):118-118.
Retraction note for "pdl has interpolation".Tomasz Kowalski - 2004 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 69 (3):935-935.
Objectivism vs. subjectivism in the social sciences.Paul Diesing - 1966 - Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):124-.


Added to PP

14 (#993,044)

6 months
5 (#644,465)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?