Cargando…

Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE: To study journals' responses to a request from the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany, to retract 88 articles due to ethical concerns, and to check whether the resulting retractions followed published guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. POPULATIO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elia, Nadia, Wager, Elizabeth, Tramèr, Martin R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085846
_version_ 1782300522945970176
author Elia, Nadia
Wager, Elizabeth
Tramèr, Martin R.
author_facet Elia, Nadia
Wager, Elizabeth
Tramèr, Martin R.
author_sort Elia, Nadia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To study journals' responses to a request from the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany, to retract 88 articles due to ethical concerns, and to check whether the resulting retractions followed published guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. POPULATION: 88 articles (18 journals) by the anaesthesiologist Dr. Boldt, that warranted retraction. METHOD: According to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, we regarded a retraction as adequate when a retraction notice was published, linked to the retracted article, identified the title and authors of the retracted article in its heading, explained the reason and who took responsibility for the retraction, and when the retracted article was freely accessible and marked using a transparent watermark that preserved original content. Two authors extracted data independently (January 2013) and contacted editors-in-chief and publishers for clarification in cases of inadequate retraction. RESULTS: Five articles (6%) fulfilled all criteria for adequate retraction. Nine (10%) were not retracted (no retraction notice published, full text article not marked). 79 (90%) retraction notices were published, 76 (86%) were freely accessible, but only 15 (17%) were complete. 73 (83%) full text articles were marked as retracted, of which 14 (16%) had an opaque watermark hiding parts of the original content, and 11 (13%) had all original content deleted. 59 (67%) retracted articles were freely accessible. One editor-in-chief stated personal problems as a reason for incomplete retractions, eight blamed their publishers. Two publishers cited legal threats from Dr. Boldt's co-authors which prevented them from retracting articles. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for retracting articles are incompletely followed. The role of publishers in the retraction process needs to be clarified and standards are needed on marking retracted articles. It remains unclear who should check that retractions are done properly. Legal safeguards are required to allow retraction of articles against the wishes of authors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3899113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38991132014-01-24 Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study Elia, Nadia Wager, Elizabeth Tramèr, Martin R. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To study journals' responses to a request from the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany, to retract 88 articles due to ethical concerns, and to check whether the resulting retractions followed published guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. POPULATION: 88 articles (18 journals) by the anaesthesiologist Dr. Boldt, that warranted retraction. METHOD: According to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, we regarded a retraction as adequate when a retraction notice was published, linked to the retracted article, identified the title and authors of the retracted article in its heading, explained the reason and who took responsibility for the retraction, and when the retracted article was freely accessible and marked using a transparent watermark that preserved original content. Two authors extracted data independently (January 2013) and contacted editors-in-chief and publishers for clarification in cases of inadequate retraction. RESULTS: Five articles (6%) fulfilled all criteria for adequate retraction. Nine (10%) were not retracted (no retraction notice published, full text article not marked). 79 (90%) retraction notices were published, 76 (86%) were freely accessible, but only 15 (17%) were complete. 73 (83%) full text articles were marked as retracted, of which 14 (16%) had an opaque watermark hiding parts of the original content, and 11 (13%) had all original content deleted. 59 (67%) retracted articles were freely accessible. One editor-in-chief stated personal problems as a reason for incomplete retractions, eight blamed their publishers. Two publishers cited legal threats from Dr. Boldt's co-authors which prevented them from retracting articles. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for retracting articles are incompletely followed. The role of publishers in the retraction process needs to be clarified and standards are needed on marking retracted articles. It remains unclear who should check that retractions are done properly. Legal safeguards are required to allow retraction of articles against the wishes of authors. Public Library of Science 2014-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3899113/ /pubmed/24465744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085846 Text en © 2014 Elia et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Elia, Nadia
Wager, Elizabeth
Tramèr, Martin R.
Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title_full Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title_fullStr Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title_full_unstemmed Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title_short Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
title_sort fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085846
work_keys_str_mv AT elianadia fateofarticlesthatwarrantedretractionduetoethicalconcernsadescriptivecrosssectionalstudy
AT wagerelizabeth fateofarticlesthatwarrantedretractionduetoethicalconcernsadescriptivecrosssectionalstudy
AT tramermartinr fateofarticlesthatwarrantedretractionduetoethicalconcernsadescriptivecrosssectionalstudy