The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.
Abstract
Journal editors are among those who must face the issue of when and how to correct the scientific literature when an allegation or finding of scientific misconduct occurs. The author describes an instructive incident of tainted data and a subsequent allegation of misconduct that involved a federally-sponsored study where some data had been fabricated. The journals that had published or were considering articles from that study were not told about the problem for almost four years after the initial allegations of misconduct. The author then provides information to throw light on such questions as: Who has the responsibility to ensure that a manuscript that may contain falsified or fabricated data is not published? Who has the responsibility to correct the literature when falsified or fabricated data have been published, and at what point should that correction be made? For example, should it be when the problem of data is suspected or when it is proven? And if proven, proven by whom? How is the larger scientific community to be notified about the problem? Where and when should the correction or retraction appear, and what should it tell readers about the basis for the retraction or correction? She also presents data from 25 cases to show the various lengths of time involved in correcting the literature after allegations of research misconduct had been made. The author concludes that the record shows how disconnected journal editors have been from the scientific misconduct process and that expectations differ regarding the obligations of authors, research institutions, and federal agencies about informing a journal when an allegation of scientific misconduct is made about a publication in its pages. The 25 cases show that substantial delays in notifying the journal and the public about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct are endemic, and that all parties have far to go in appreciating their roles in maintaining the integrity of the biomedical literature.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“An early study by Parrish noted that retraction notices often obfuscated the reasons for retraction, particularly in cases of research misconduct 8”
From Empirical developments in retraction (2008) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Retracted Science and the Retraction Index
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.05661-11 · Cited by 405
RetractedWhy and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964 · Cited by 263
“about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct’.(3) In a later study, she examined the use of ‘expressions of concern’ and concluded that these may be useful ‘for ensuring the integrity of the research record during the sometimes lengthy period that research misconduct investigations can take’.”
BackgroundThe visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles
Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017) · Current Sociology · doi:10.1177/0011392116663807 · Cited by 153
Empirical developments in retraction
Redman, B. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023069 · Cited by 91
Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct
Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2010) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9151-4 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Parrish, D. M.
- Corresponding author
- Parrish, D M
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 221-30
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095436858
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 8.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- research misconduct, research misconduct allegations, retraction, journal editors, data fabrication, falsified data
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Manuscripts, Medical as Topic, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research Support as Topic, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Social Responsibility, United States, Scientific Misconduct, Government Regulation, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review