ArticleeLife2014
Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications.
Article in eLife, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 182 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cost of Retracted Articles to the NIH: a Living Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Contaminating the evidence: the reproducibility crisis and fraud in infectious disease research.Infection · 2026Article
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2: Off-Label Marketing-Consequences for Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2023Article
- Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool (AIMRDA) for the Peer-Review of Studies Assessing the Anticancer Activity of Natural Products: A Step towards Reproducibility.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Research integrity guidelines in the academic environment: The context of Brazilian institutions with retracted publications in health and life sciences.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: an altmetric study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- COVID-19: The urgent call for academic research in research ethics.Ethics, medicine, and public health · 2021Article
- Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- RipetaScore: Measuring the Quality, Transparency, and Trustworthiness of a Scientific Work.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.
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.