• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting)
 

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting)

on

  • 3,674 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,674
Views on SlideShare
2,029
Embed Views
1,645

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
39
Comments
1

4 Embeds 1,645

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com 1578
http://retractionwatch.com 61
http://www.newsblur.com 4
http://embedded.dreamwidth.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Video recording of this presentation is now available on River Valley TV: http://river-valley.tv/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-what-retractions-tell-us-about-scientific-transparency/
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting) Presentation Transcript

    • The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency 2011 CrossRef Annual Member Meeting November 15, 2011 Ivan Oransky, MD Executive Editor, Reuters Health Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
    • Retractions on the Rise -The Wall Street Journal
    • Retractions on the Rise
    • Retractions on the Rise -Nature
    • Retractions on the Rise -Neil Saunders
    • The Unofficial Record Holder
    • Which Journals Retract? -Infection and Immunity 2011
    • Which Journals Retract?
    • Why Do Journals Retract? -Journal of Medical Ethics 2010
    • Why Do Journals Retract?• Error is more common than fraud• 73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% for fraud• Most common reason for retraction: a scientific mistake (234 papers; 31.5%)• Fabrication (including data plagiarism) more common than text plagiarism• Multiple reasons for retraction cited for 67 papers (9.0%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were retracted for ambiguous reasons -Journal of Medical Ethics 2010
    • Duplication
    • Publisher Error
    • Plagiarism
    • Legal Reasons
    • Lack of IRB Approval
    • Authorship Issues
    • Fraud: Image Manipulation
    • Fraud: Faked Data
    • Not Reproducible
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers? -Assn of College & Research Libraries 2011
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers?Budd et al, 1999:• Retracted articles received more than 2,000 post- retraction citations; less than 8% of citations acknowledged the retraction• Preliminary study of the present data shows that continued citation remains a problem• Of 391 citations analyzed, only 6% acknowledge the retraction
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?• ‘important irregularities’ Well, if they’re important irregularities, why don’t you tell us what they are?• ‘the authors ‘no longer stand by their results’ Are they standing somewhere else in the lab? C’mon, tell us why they can’t stand by the results anymore.• ‘incorrect data were found to have been included on the study Case Report Forms’ Paging Dr. Kafka.
    • This is Transparency?• ‘figure withdrawn due to lack of supporting data’ “Someone seems to have made this up.”• ‘Retraction…is being done for legal reasons based on the advice of counsel’ We’d comment on this, but we’d probably get sued.• ‘Numerous errors in the text and references… were not discovered until after publication, although neither novel ideas nor data were misappropriated’ As journalism error maven Craig Silverman would say on RegretTheError.com, “Rest is fine.”
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?In this Letter we made errors in representative imagechoice, including mislabelling of images or choosing animage from the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choiceof images was completely independent of the data analysisand so none of the conclusions in our original Letter areaffected. We apologise for any confusion these errors mayhave caused.
    • This is Transparency?In this Letter we made errors in representative image Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexchoice, including mislabelling of images or choosing animage from the inappropriate In the process ofcases, choice for four different genotypes. genotype. In all choosingofrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of our analysis images was completely independent of the data analysisand so none of the cropped images from original pictures shown in Fig. 1b, conclusions in our original Letter are were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. Weaffected. We apologise for any confusion these errors may provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a with newhave caused. representative images for the following genotypes: WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original images for every genotype and additional examples are shown in the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.
    • This is Transparency?In this Letter depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for Figure 1c we made errors in representative imagechoice, different genotypes. In of images orof figure assembly Figureincluding mislabelling the process choosing an five 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex cropped images from original pictures were inadvertentlyimage from the inappropriate In the process ofcases, choice for four different genotypes. genotype. In all choosingofrepresentative pictures incorrectly. We provideof our analysis images was completelythat reflect the results below a mislabelled and used independent of the data analysisand so none of the cropped images from original pictures In corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. shown in Fig. 1b, conclusions in our original Letter areaffected. We apologise for any confusion these errors Brn11 cells wereephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) may the inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below a corrected the lower layers of thenew and do aberrantly accumulate in version of Fig. 1a with cortexhave caused. not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler representative images for the following genotypes: WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification additional examples (Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and picture for WT isare shown inin the two rightmostInformation of this also shown the Supplementary panels. Original images for every genotype and additional examples are shownof Brn11 Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution in cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum. experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same results.
    • This is Transparency?In this Letter depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for Figure 1c we made errors in representative image choice,including1a depicts a Tbr1 staining process of figure assembly five different genotypes. In the of the adult mouse cortex Figure mislabelling of images or choosing an image from cropped imagesgenotypes. the process of inadvertently four 1d, the from original pictures were of imagesthe inappropriate second panel,all cases, choice choosing was forIn Fig.differentgenotype. InIn labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’completely independent of the ‘Reln1/2’. provideof our analysis representative pictures incorrectly.analysisthe Methods of mislabelled and used that reflect We results below a should instead be labelled data the In and so nonethecorrected Fig. 1ccropped images fromaffected. pictures In conclusions in with a new imageneurons’, ‘‘Cortical original Letter for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. shown in Fig. 1b,our ‘Stimulation of are original We summary sectionapologise for fromconfusion these(Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells wereephrinB3 compound mice and used incorrectly. We the inadvertently mislabelled errors may have caused. neurons any E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read provide below a correctedE15.5 werelayers of thenew and do aberrantly accumulate in the lower Fig. 1a with cortex ‘‘Cortical neurons from version of grown….’’. not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler representative images for the following genotypes: WT and (Reln2/2) phenotype. Originalsupplementary onlinefor WT (There were mistakes in the pictures and picture Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification additional examples isare shown too.) Supplementary Information of this material, in the also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original images for every genotype and additional examples are shownof Brn11 Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution in cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum. experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same results.
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?“The authors declare that key experiments presentedin the majority of these figures were recentlyreproduced and that the results confirmed theexperimental data and the conclusions drawn fromthem.”EMBO Journal editor Bernd Pulverer:“We did not formally investigate this case at thejournal and we have not seen this data, as it does notaffect the retraction.”
    • Model Organisms – and Retractions
    • Model Organisms – and Retractions
    • Model Retractions
    • Model Retractions
    • The Way Forward• Use systems to detect image manipulation and plagiarism• Require authors to disclose prior retractions and investigations• Trust anonymous whistleblowers more• Demand more of institutions• Move more quickly to correct and retract• Make retraction notices clearer - and -
    • The Way Forward• Make them freely available
    • Acknowledgements/Contact Info • Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health • Adam Marcus, Retraction Watch • http://retractionwatch.com • ivan-oransky@erols.com • Twitter: @ivanoransky