Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (Papers: Jodi Schneider, et al | October 2020)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on October 23, 2020
Keywords: Journal, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On October, 14 2020

The word "Integrity" inscribed one of overlapping cogs

Abstract

If you’ve ever wondered how well retractions and the digital academic ecosystem safeguards the accuracy and fidelity of the academic record, this open access paper published in October 2020 suggests not well.  A clinical trial paper still being cited 11 years after being retracted for fraudulent data?  Something really has to change.  We have included links to 6 related items.

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.6.3…), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

Schneider, J, Di. Y., Hill, AM. & Whitehorn, AS. (2020) Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1
Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1

Related Reading

Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations (Papers: Anton Kuhberger et. al. | December 2022)

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data (Preprint Papers: Caitlin Bakker et al | September 2022)

The Science and Politics of Journal Retractions: A conversation with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) – YouTube (Ivan Oransky & Siddhartha Roy | June 2022)

The new normal? Redaction bias in biomedical science (Papers: David Robert Grimes and James Heathers | December 2021)

Retracted randomised controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (Papers: Yuki Kataoka, et al | June 2022)

Addressing the Continued Circulation of Retracted Research as a Design Problem (Nathan D. Woods & Jodi Schneider | February 2022)

Addressing the Continued Circulation of Retracted Research as a Design Problem (Papers: Nathan D. Woods & Jodi Schneider | February 2022)

Continued Use of Retracted Publications: Implications for Information Systems and Scientific Publishing (Papers: Peiling Wang, et al | January 2022)

The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study (Preprint Papers: Yuki Kataoka, et al | February 2022)

Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem (Papers: Mark J Bolland, et al | February 2021)

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (Papers: Jodi Schneider, et al | October 2020)

Why unethical papers should be retracted (Papers: William Bülow, et al | August 2020)

More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed (Papers: July 2019)

Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science (Papers – preprint: Luis Morís Fernández Miguel Vadillo | June 2019)

Ask Retraction Watch: Is it OK to cite a retracted paper? (Ivan Oransky | January 2018)

Understanding the complexities of retractions (Amy Riegelman and Caitlin Bakker | January 2018)

Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central (Papers: Elizabeth Moylan and Maria Kowalczuk | 2016)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in