A Retrospective Analysis of the Trend of Retracted Publications in the Field of Biomedical and Life Sciences

Among the many forms of research misconduct, publishing fraudulent data is considered to be serious where the confidence and validity of the research is detrimentally undermined. In this study, the trend of 303 retracted publications from 44 authors (with more than three retracted publications each) was analysed. The results showed that only 6.60% of the retracted publications were single-authored and the discovery of fraudulent publications had reduced from 52.24 months (those published before the year 2000) to 33.23 months (those published on the year 2000 and onwards). It appears that with the widely accessible public databases like PubMed, fraudulent publications can be detected more easily. The different approaches adopted by authors who had previous publications retracted are also discussed herein.

[1]  Hannah Brown,et al.  How impact factors changed medical publishing—and science , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  Minghua Zhang,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective , 2006, International journal of clinical practice. Supplement.

[4]  A retraction of two papers on cardiomyopathy. , 1983, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Jin Mee Kim,et al.  Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts , 2005, Science.

[6]  S. Fuchs,et al.  Fraud and Trust in Science , 2015, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[7]  Simone Rödder,et al.  Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media , 2007, EMBO reports.

[8]  Eugenie Samuel Reich,et al.  The rise and fall of a physics fraudster , 2009 .

[9]  Sung Keun Kang,et al.  Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst , 2004, Science.

[10]  M. Kalichman,et al.  Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research , 2006, Science and engineering ethics.

[11]  Richard Smith,et al.  Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Michael W. Kalichman,et al.  Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: a preliminary study , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[13]  Stephen James Wilson,et al.  An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010 , 2012, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[14]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Scientists behaving badly , 2005, Nature.

[15]  H. Sox,et al.  Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  Péter Kakuk,et al.  The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences , 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[17]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Should we ditch impact factors? , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.