Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign

article has not abstract

Vyšlo v časopise: Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Med 10(12): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
Kategorie: Essay
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563

Souhrn

article has not abstract

Zdroje

1. FangFC, SteenRG, CasadevallA (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 : 17028–17033.

2. RichardsS (2012) Fraud breeds retractions. The Scientist Available: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32687/title/Fraud-Breeds-Retractions/.

3. SteenRG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 37 : 249–253.

4. Zimmer C (2012 April 16) A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform. The New York Times.

5. AnaJ, KoehlmoosT, SmithR, YanLL (2013) Research misconduct in low -⁠ and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine 10: e1001315 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315

6. FangFC, BennettJW, CasadevallA (2013) Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. Mbio 4: e00640–12.

7. FangFC, CasadevallA (2011) Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 79 : 3855–3859.

8. GrieneisenML, ZhangM (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE 7: e44118 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118

9. SteenRG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 37 : 113–117.

10. Couzin-FrankelJ (2013) Shaking up science. Science 339 : 386–389.

11. SteenRG, CasadevallA, FangFC (2013) Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8: e68397 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397

12. Beal P (2008) A dictionary of English manuscript terminology: 1450 to 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. FanelliD (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4: e5738 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

14. Reich ES (2009) Plastic fantastic. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

15. Anonymous (2013) Seven days -⁠ Trend Watch. Nature 497 : 10–11.

16. KaatzA, VogelmanPN, CarnesM (2013) Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? maybe, maybe not. Mbio 4: e00156–13.

17. FanelliD (2013) Only reporting guidelines can save (soft) science. Eur J Personality 27 : 124–125.

18. FanelliD (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494 : 149.

19. ResnikDB, DinseGE (2013) Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics 39 : 46–50.

20. WagerE, WilliamsP (2011) Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics 37 : 567–570.

21. WilliamsP, WagerE (2013) Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. ScieEng Ethics 19 : 1–11.

22. ResnikDB, PatroneD, PeddadaS (2010) Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance 17 : 79–84.

23. ResnikDB, PeddadaS, BrunsonW (2009) Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance 16 : 254–267.

24. Fanelli D (2011) The black, the white and the grey areas -⁠ towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. T. SNM, editor. Promoting Research Integrity on a Global Basis. Singapore; Hackensack (New Jersey); London: World Scientific Publishing Co. Ptc. Ltd.

25. GodecharleS, NemeryB, DierickxK (2013) Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. Lancet 381 : 1097–1098.

26. SteneckNH (2013) Global research integrity training. Science 340 : 552–553.

27. ErramiM, SunZH, LongTC, GeorgeAC, GarnerHR (2009) Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research 37: D921–D924.

28. de MeisL, VellosoA, LannesD, CarmoMS, de MeisC (2003) The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Braz J Med Biol Res 36 : 1135–1141.

29. AbramoG, CiceroT, D'AngeloCA (2011) The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems. Scientometrics 87 : 641–654.

30. van DalenHP, HenkensK (2012) Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 63 : 1282–1293.

31. FranzoniC, ScellatoG, StephanP (2011) Changing incentives to publish. Science 333 : 702–703.

32. PautassoM (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85 : 193–202.

33. FanelliD (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90 : 891–904.

34. FanelliD (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? an empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 5: e10271 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

35. DoucouliagosH, LarocheP, StanleyTD (2005) Publication bias in union-productivity research? Relat Ind Ind Relat 60 : 320–347.

36. MunafoMR, AttwoodAS, FlintJ (2008) Bias in genetic association studies: effects of research location and resources. Psychol Med 38 : 1213–1214.

37. FanelliD, IoannidisJPA (2013) US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110 : 15031–15036.