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?

The Stephen E. Breuning Case

Eugene Garfield, PhD; Alfred Welljams-Dorof

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1424-1426.

Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine the research impact of scientific fraud through citation analysis of 20 Breuning publications, using the 1980 to 1988 Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index. These publications received 200 citations, of which 80 (40.0%) were self-citations by Breuning or his coauthors. Tracked over time, non—self-citations declined sharply in 1986 and later years, coinciding with disclosure of Breuning's fraud. The data indicated that, in this case, researchers effectively shunned work known to be or even suspected of being falsified. Unique citation contexts (101) were examined to see how citing authors used Breuning's work: 33 were negative (disagreed with findings/methods), 10 positive (agreed), and 58 neutral (no valuation). Also, 63 were inconsequential (no influence on the citing author's analysis/conclusion). Thirty-eight were material, but 21 of these led to negative conclusions. These data diminish the apparent impact of Breuning's work suggested by total citations alone.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1424-1426)

Author Affiliations
From the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pa.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to Institute of Scientific Information, 3501 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Mr Welljams-Dorof).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

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  

Editorial Peer Review
Gellert
JAMA 1995;273:114-115.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
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 Consequences of a Fraudulent Scientist on His Innocent Coinvestigators
Wysocki and Fuqua
JAMA 1990;264:3145-3145.
ABSTRACT