ArticleScience and engineering ethics2007
Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022Article
- Manuscript Referencing Errors and Their Impact on Shaping Current Evidence.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2020Article
- Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016).Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Opinion: Medical misinformation in the era of Google: Computational approaches to a pervasive problem.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- A proposal for considering research integrity from the perspective of behavioral economics.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2014Article
- Improving Trend of Adhering to Ethical Measures in Iranian Research in Human Genetics: A Survey from 2005 to 2009; and the Road Ahead.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Plagiarism in scientific publishing.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2012Article
- Postpublication errors in imaging-related journals.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2012Article
- Reporting of article retractions in bibliographic databases and online journals.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2011Article
- Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct.Science and engineering ethics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ("Findings of Scientific Misconduct") or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the "comment" field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide "Findings of Scientific Misconduct", leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0-592). Researchers should be alert to "Comments" linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the "Findings of Scientific Misconduct' reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.