• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Scientific Integrity and Transparency Under Scrutiny: Lessons from Retraction Watch
 

Scientific Integrity and Transparency Under Scrutiny: Lessons from Retraction Watch

on

  • 9,070 views

Presentation at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, May 7, 2013

Presentation at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, May 7, 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
9,070
Views on SlideShare
2,500
Embed Views
6,570

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
26
Comments
0

20 Embeds 6,570

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com 5606
http://retractionwatch.com 580
http://www.cre.or.kr 96
http://facultytrustee.blogspot.com 79
http://www.scoop.it 44
http://www.newsblur.com 42
https://twitter.com 31
http://planet.hboeck.de 25
http://www.peeep.us 24
http://newsblur.com 13
http://embedded.dreamwidth.net 6
http://www.facultytrustee.blogspot.com 5
http://tweetedtimes.com 5
http://127.0.0.1 4
http://facultytrustee.blogspot.co.uk 3
http://www.healthnewsreview.org 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://honyaku.yahoofs.jp 1
https://www.google.tt 1
http://wave.webaim.org 1
More...

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
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Scientific Integrity and Transparency Under Scrutiny: Lessons from Retraction Watch Scientific Integrity and Transparency Under Scrutiny: Lessons from Retraction Watch Presentation Transcript

    • Scientific Integrity and TransparencyUnder Scrutiny:Lessons from Retraction Watch3rdWorld Conference on Research IntegrityMontrealMay 7, 2013Ivan OranskyCo-founder, Retraction Watchhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoransky
    • Always Another Story…
    • Retractions on the Risehttp://pmretract.heroku.com/byyear
    • Most Retractions Due to MisconductPNAS online October 1, 2012
    • How Long Do Retractions Take?
    • How Long Do Retractions Take?
    • How Long Do Retractions Take?
    • How Long Do Retractions Take?
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers’Citations?-Assn of College & Research Libraries 2011
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers’Citations?Budd et al, 1999:• Retracted articles received more than 2,000 post-retraction citations; less than 8% of citationsacknowledged the retraction• Preliminary study of the present data shows thatcontinued citation remains a problem• Of 391 citations analyzed, only 6% acknowledgethe retraction
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers’Citations?
    • What Happens to Retracted Papers’Citations?“…annual citations of an article drop by 65%following retraction, controlling for article ageand calendar year. In the years prior toretraction, there is no such decline, implyingthat retractions are unanticipated by thescientific community.”
    • Do Journals Get the Word Out?
    • Do Journals Get the Word Out?“Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader;31.8% of retracted papers were not noted asretracted in any way.”
    • Do Journals Get the Word Out?How the Naïve Reader is Alerted to RetractionsWhere retraction noted Retracted papers, n (%)Watermark on pdf 305 (41.1)Journal website 248 (33.4)Not noted anywhere 236 (31.8)Note appended to pdf 128 (17.3)pdf deleted from website 98 (13.2)
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”“Some sentences…are directly taken from otherpapers, which could be viewed as a form ofplagiarism”
    • Puzzling Policies
    • Puzzling Policies
    • Trend: Mega-Corrections
    • Trend: Mega-CorrectionsIn this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,including mislabelling of images or choosing an image fromthe inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of imageswas completely independent of the data analysis and sonone of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected.We apologise for any confusion these errors may havecaused.
    • Trend: Mega-CorrectionsIn this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,including mislabelling of images or choosing an image fromthe inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of imageswas completely independent of the data analysis and so noneof the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. Weapologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.
    • Trend: Mega-CorrectionsIn this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,including mislabelling of images or choosing an image fromthe inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of imageswas completely independent of the data analysis and so noneof the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. Weapologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex forfive different genotypes. In the process of figure assemblycropped images from original pictures were inadvertentlymislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below acorrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. Inthe ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cellsaberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and donot migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examplesare shown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11cells. We have also included results from a new, reproducedexperiment recently performed with an additional cohort ofanimals that shows exactly the same results.Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex forfive different genotypes. In the process of figure assemblycropped images from original pictures were inadvertentlymislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below acorrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. Inthe ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cellsaberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and donot migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examplesare shown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11cells. We have also included results from a new, reproducedexperiment recently performed with an additional cohort ofanimals that shows exactly the same results.
    • Trend: Mega-CorrectionsIn this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,including mislabelling of images or choosing an image fromthe inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of imageswas completely independent of the data analysis and so noneof the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. Weapologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortexfor four different genotypes. In the process of choosingrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of ouranalysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from originalpictures were inadvertently mislabelled and usedincorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1awith new representative images for the following genotypes:WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picturefor WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Originalimages for every genotype and additional examples areshown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum.Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex forfive different genotypes. In the process of figure assemblycropped images from original pictures were inadvertentlymislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below acorrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. Inthe ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cellsaberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and donot migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examplesare shown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11cells. We have also included results from a new, reproducedexperiment recently performed with an additional cohort ofanimals that shows exactly the same results.Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex forfive different genotypes. In the process of figure assemblycropped images from original pictures were inadvertentlymislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below acorrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. Inthe ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cellsaberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and donot migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examplesare shown in the Supplementary Information of thisCorrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11cells. We have also included results from a new, reproducedexperiment recently performed with an additional cohort ofanimals that shows exactly the same results.In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’should instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methodssummary section ‘Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Corticalneurons from E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.(There were mistakes in the supplementary onlinematerial, too.)In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’should instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methodssummary section ‘Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Corticalneurons from E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.(There were mistakes in the supplementary onlinematerial, too.)
    • Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Uphttp://www.labtimes.org
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
    • Blogs Get Aggressive
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://www.science-fraud.org/
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Contact Infoivan-oransky@erols.comhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoranskyThanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health