This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Mark P. Pfeifer, MD; Gwendolyn L. Snodgrass, MS

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1420-1423.

Abstract
Little is known about the ultimate scientific fate of retracted, invalid literature. We identified 82 completely retracted articles by electronic and manual methods and measured their subsequent use in the scientific literature by performing citation analysis. After retraction, these studies were cited, for support of scientific concepts, 733 times. Comparison with a control group revealed that retraction reduces subsequent citation by approximately 35%. There was no evidence that small, obscure journals, non-US journals, or non-US authors were disproportionately responsible for these citations. Although, after retraction, US authors accounted for a smaller percentage of citations, they continued to be the single greatest source. Several possible reasons why invalid information continues to be used were identified. These included a dearth of available information on retracted works; inconsistency in retraction format, terminology, and indexing; and an apparent lack of sufficient attention to manuscripts by some authors and editors.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1420-1423)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine (Dr Pfeifer) and the Kornhauser Health Sciences Library (Ms Snodgrass), University of Louisville (Ky).

Footnotes
Presented in part at the Council of Biology Editors Annual Meeting, Rochester, Minn, May 21,1989.

Reprint requests to the Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, Ambulatory Care Bldg, Louisville, KY 40292 (Dr Pfeifer).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Empirical developments in retraction
Redman et al.
J. Med. Ethics 2008;34:807-809.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Response to Correspondence, "`Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma': Correcting the Record"
Brumback
J Child Neurol 2008;23:1092-1094.
 

Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor--Is it a force for good or harm?
Smith
Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:1129-1130.
FULL TEXT  

Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals.
Kober et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:620-625.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case
Sox and Rennie
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:609-613.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The reference: more than a buttress of the scientific edifice
Schott
JRSM 2003;96:191-193.
FULL TEXT  

THE TECHNOLOGICAL OBSOLESCENCE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
Feigenbaum and Levy
Rationality and Society 1996;8:261-276.
ABSTRACT  

Publication of Research: The Ethical Dimension
Lynch
JDR 1994;73:1778-1782.
ABSTRACT  

Scientific Misconduct in Environmental Science and Toxicology
Nigg and Radulescu
JAMA 1994;272:168-170.
ABSTRACT  

The Scientific Community's Response to Evidence of Fraudulent Publication: The Robert Slutsky Case
Whitely et al.
JAMA 1994;272:170-173.
ABSTRACT  

The Order of Authorship: Who's on First?
Riesenberg and Lundberg
JAMA 1990;264:1857-1857.
ABSTRACT  

Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: The First International Congress
Rennie
JAMA 1990;263:1317-1317.
ABSTRACT