Empirical developments in retraction

This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduc...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Redman, B. K. (Author) ; Yarandi, H. N. (Author) ; Merz, J. F. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2008
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2008, Volume: 34, Issue: 11, Pages: 807-809
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1816136107
003 DE-627
005 20220908053459.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2008 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/jme.2007.023069  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816136107 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816136107 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Redman, B. K.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Empirical developments in retraction 
264 1 |c 2008 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary. 
700 1 |a Yarandi, H. N.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Merz, J. F.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 34(2008), 11, Seite 807-809  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:34  |g year:2008  |g number:11  |g pages:807-809 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27720213  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/67e6f264-2ebd-4f7e-a4b9-2cc0b50b3da5/download  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH title and first author match)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023069  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/11/807.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 34  |j 2008  |e 11  |h 807-809 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185589972 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816136107 
LOK |0 005 20220908053459 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#2D640055110E54435A81D7D7E7A1B70EB07FF9C4 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27720213 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 

Similar Items

more