This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (29)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications

John M. Budd, PhD; MaryEllen Sievert, PhD; Tom R. Schultz, MA

JAMA. 1998;280:296-297.

Context.— This study examined the impact of retracted articles on biomedical communication.

Objective.— To examine publications identified in the biomedical literature as having been retracted, to ascertain why and by whom the publications were retracted and to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work.

Design.— A search of MEDLINE from 1966 through August 1997 for articles that had been retracted.

Main Outcome Measures.— Characteristics of retractions and citations to articles after retraction.

Results.— A total of 235 articles had been retracted. Error was acknowledged in relation to 91 articles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was given in 20. Of the 235 articles, 190 were retracted by some or all of the authors; 45 were retracted by a person or organization other than the author(s). The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n=17) or implicitly (n=263) as though it were valid research.

Conclusion.— Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid work in the biomedical literature after publication of the retraction; these citations signal potential problems for biomedical science.

From the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri–Columbia.

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Handheld vs. Laptop Computers for Electronic Data Collection in Clinical Research: A Crossover Randomized Trial
Haller et al.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16:651-659.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Handheld vs. Laptop Computers for Electronic Data Collection in Clinical Research: A Crossover Randomized Trial
Haller et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009;16:651-659.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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

DNA polymorphisms and renal disease: a critical appraisal of studies presented at the annual ERA/EDTA and ASN conferences in 2004 and 2005
Mondry et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:2775-2779.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Misreading Science in the Twentieth Century
BUDD
Science Communication 2001;22:300-315.
ABSTRACT  

Retractions in Gut 10 years after publication
FARTHING
Gut 2001;48:285-286.
FULL TEXT  

Reporting Research, Retraction of Results, and Responsibility
Tobin
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2000;162:773-774.
FULL TEXT  

A quantitative ranking of Canada's research output of original human studies for the decade 1989 to 1998
Gagnon et al.
CMAJ 2000;162:37-40.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT