Retracted scientific papers

  • Thread starter Byron999
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

Byron999

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
8,686
You guys see this? This was reported by the National Academy of Sciences. Damn.... :shock::hmm:



WASHINGTON: When a biomedical study is retracted, most of the time it is because of misconduct rather than error, according to a new report.

Two-thirds of all retractions around the world stem from acts like fraud, suspected fraud or plagiarism, it added.

And as a percentage of all scientific articles published, retractions because of fraud or suspected fraud have jumped 10-fold since 1975, said the study.

Its lead author was Arturo Casadevall, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, in New York. The study was published October 1, 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Biomedical research has become a winner-take-all game, one with perverse incentives that entice scientists to cut corners and, in some instances, falsify data or commit other acts of misconduct," Casadevall wrote.

He said the numbers stand in stark contrast to earlier studies that suggested mistakes accounted for the majority of retracted scientific papers.

More fraud waiting to be discovered

Casadevall and two other scientists reviewed 2,047 papers that were removed from biomedical literature through May of this year.

The authors consulted secondary sources to determine why the papers were yanked, such as the National Institutes of Health's Office of Research Integrity, and Retractionwatch.com. Both probe scientific misconduct.
They found that 21% of the retractions were attributable to error, but 67% stemmed from misconduct. Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the rest.

"What's troubling is that the more skillful the fraud, the less likely that it will be discovered, so there likely are more fraudulent papers out there that haven't yet been detected and retracted," Casadevall wrote.

Top journals have high retraction rates

Earlier studies of fraud that underestimated the scope of scientific cheating were based solely on journals' retraction notices, written by the original authors themselves, said Casadevall.

"Many of those notices are wrong," he said. "Authors commonly write, 'We regret we have to retract our paper because the work is not reproducible,' which is not exactly a lie. The work indeed was not reproducible because it was fraudulent. Researchers try to protect their labs and their reputations, and these retractions are written in such a way that you often don't know what really happened."

Prestigious journals had particularly high rates of retractions.

This reflects a prevailing culture in science in which researchers are disproportionately rewarded for publishing a lot and getting published in top-notch journals, he said.


Scientists behaving badly: most retractions due to fraud | COSMOS magazine
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
"Many of those notices are wrong," he said. "Authors commonly write, 'We regret we have to retract our paper because the work is not reproducible,' which is not exactly a lie.


Right there is the system correcting itself. Reproducible results is the hallmark of science.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
187,717
It's not really surprising. While the scientific method itself is a great way to learn about our Universe, it is practiced by people, and has always been in danger of being suborned by the interests of patrons. That's often one strength of government-funded research, that it is less susceptible to being bought.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
I agree, whats disturbing is the ethics of so many researchers.

There is hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for the big pharm companies. People are people and are thus corruptible. However, the good news is that the system itself isn't corrupted. Reproducibility is the key, verification is built into the system..... unlike government, politics, or economics which have no fail safe built in.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
It's a side effect of "Publish or perish".

It's a side effect of greed. The majority of the papers where in microbio and immunology.... big pharma related, big money related. You are not going to falsify data without a large monetary benefit. Just keeping a job is not enough incentive to go to jail over fraud.

Publish or perish is how science stays on the cutting edge and moves forward. If you are not actively contributing to the knowledge base, you are irrelevant. Contrary to popular opinion, science isn't for the meek. In academia your rivals will find you out and you will be removed for false publications, because once again reproducibility is key. You have a better chance scamming government regulators like the FDA than your peers.
 

Blues4U

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
15,213
Reaction score
20,446
In academia your rivals will find you out and you will be removed for false publications, because once again reproducibility is key. You have a better chance scamming government regulators like the FDA than your peers.


Unless your peers are part of the scam?

There is no broad brush to paint all scientific fraud participants-

I would assume that some of it stems from wanting to have your name in a national or international publication-

Some of it is financial greed.

Some of it is socialistic greed.

Some of it is being a zealot.

SOme of it is purely accidental, or bad or insufficient data, that is found out while trying to reproduce the results-

Sort of like voter fraud-Some is accidental, some is incompetence and some is intentional-

Like Geo said--People is people---imperfect beast, the lot of us-
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
33,135
Reaction score
58,230

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,201
Reaction score
187,717
Unless your peers are part of the scam?

There is no broad brush to paint all scientific fraud participants-

I would assume that some of it stems from wanting to have your name in a national or international publication-

Some of it is financial greed.

Some of it is socialistic greed.

Some of it is being a zealot.

SOme of it is purely accidental, or bad or insufficient data, that is found out while trying to reproduce the results-

Sort of like voter fraud-Some is accidental, some is incompetence and some is intentional-

Like Geo said--People is people---imperfect beast, the lot of us-

Hence peer-review. It works.

Need evidence? Re-read this Internet post.
 

River side

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
3,403
Har.

Another article I read said that the 10-fold increase was on the order of something like 10 in one million in 1976, 96 in one million in 2007.

Either way you slice it, it ain't much.

There are folks who look at "science" as if it were just another cult of faith-based mumbo-jumbo - I mean, really, how many of us have ever crunched the data regarding whether or not coffee is bad for you, or the age of the Universe. Have you ever heard anyone say that they don't "believe in Evolution"?

The difference though, is that somebody else does crunch those numbers and will call bullshit when it's appropriate.

Still, it seems to offend some when a high priest gets caught with their pants down.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
Har.

Another article I read said that the 10-fold increase was on the order of something like 10 in one million in 1976, 96 in one million in 2007.

Either way you slice it, it ain't much.

There are folks who look at "science" as if it were just another cult of faith-based mumbo-jumbo - I mean, really, how many of us have ever crunched the data regarding whether or not coffee is bad for you, or the age of the Universe. Have you ever heard anyone say that they don't "believe in Evolution"?

The difference though, is that somebody else does crunch those numbers and will call bullshit when it's appropriate.

Still, it seems to offend some when a high priest gets caught with their pants down.

Did you actually read the article?

In the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two scientists and a medical communications consultant analyzed 2,047 retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences.

I'd say that's a little more than 96 per year.
 

Byron999

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
8,686
They found that 21% of the retractions were attributable to error, but 67% stemmed from misconduct. Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the rest.


Would there not be a good reason to list these individules in an online data base for all the world to see? That may deter some from doing so. What are the consequences they face now?
 

Roberteaux

Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
39,867
Reaction score
185,734
You mean, we can't have blind faith in all those who are referred to as scientists?

Shocking... just shocking. Dr. Mengele must be spinning in his grave.

--R :laugh2:
 

River side

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
3,403
Did you actually read the article?



I'd say that's a little more than 96 per year.

Did you actually read my post?

And another question, then -oh never mind, it has math in it.

I not only read the article - I read more than one - and said so.

You could read this one:

Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers - Yahoo! News

...and when you get to this part, you'll see where I got my numbers:

"A review of retractions in medical and biological peer-reviewed journals finds the percentage of studies withdrawn because of fraud or suspected fraud has jumped substantially since the mid-1970s. In 1976, there were fewer than 10 fraud retractions for every 1 million studies published, compared with 96 retractions per million in 2007."

I have no idea how many millions of papers have been published in total, though.
 

Latest Threads



Top
')