ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathway Analysis Interpretation in the Multi-Omic Era.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025Review
- Article
- Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The retraction of an article is probably the most severe outcome of a scientific project. While great emphasis has been placed on articles retracted due to scientific misconduct, studies show many retractions are due to honest errors. Unfortunately, in most cases, retraction notices do not provide sufficient information to determine the specific types and causes of these errors. In our study, we explored the research data management (RDM) errors that led to retractions from the authors' perspectives. We collected responses from 97 researchers from a broad range of disciplines using a survey design. Our exploratory results suggest that just about any type of RDM error can lead to the retraction of a paper, and these errors can occur at any stage of the data management workflow. The most frequently occurring cause of an error was inattention. The retraction was an extremely stressful experience for the majority of our sample, and most surveyed researchers introduced changes to their data management workflow as a result. Based on our findings, we propose that researchers revise their data management workflows as a whole instead of focusing on certain aspects of the process, with particular emphasis on tasks vulnerable to human fallibility.
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.