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

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]  G Goldstein,et al.  Retraction Notice , 2017, Journal of neurochemistry.

[2]  M Sievert,et al.  Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. , 1998, JAMA.

[3]  M Sievert,et al.  Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. , 1999, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[4]  Editorial. Anthropology and genetic markers. , 2001, Human immunology.

[5]  Robert F Service Bell Labs Fires Star Physicist Found Guilty of Forging Data , 2002, Science.

[6]  Theodore Goldfarb Scientific misconduct - Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data , 2002 .

[7]  Richard Smith,et al.  Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[8]  B. Druss,et al.  Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[9]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[10]  H. Yarandi,et al.  Empirical developments in retraction , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[11]  D. Allison,et al.  Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials , 2008, International Journal of Obesity.

[12]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). , 2009, Maturitas.

[13]  Analysis of retractions puts spotlight on academia , 2009, Nature Medicine.

[14]  How cognitive biases affect our interpretation of political messages , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  J. Henrich,et al.  Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment , 2010, Science.

[16]  R. Steen Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? , 2010, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. , 2010, JAMA.

[18]  G. Spielmans,et al.  From Evidence-based Medicine to Marketing-based Medicine: Evidence from Internal Industry Documents , 2010 .

[19]  Systems failure , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.