• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

与不当行为调查结果相关的科学撤稿和更正。

Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings.

机构信息

NIEHS, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2013 Jan;39(1):46-50. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100766. Epub 2012 Sep 1.

DOI:10.1136/medethics-2012-100766
PMID:22942373
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3525741/
Abstract

We examined all 208 closed cases involving official findings of research misconduct published by the US Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 to determine how often scientists mention in a retraction or correction notice that there was an ethical problem with an associated article. 75 of these cases cited at least one published article affected by misconduct for a total of 174 articles. For 127 of these 174, we found both the article and a retraction or correction statement. Since eight of the 127 published statements consisted of simply the word 'retracted,' our analysis focused on the remaining 119 for which a more detailed retraction or correction was published. Of these 119 statements, only 41.2% mentioned ethics at all (and only 32.8% named a specific ethical problem such as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), whereas the other 58.8% described the reason for retraction or correction as error, loss of data or replication failure when misconduct was actually at issue. Among the published statements in response to an official finding of misconduct (within the time frame studied), the proportion that mentioned ethics was significantly higher in recent years than in earlier years, as was the proportion that named a specific problem. To promote research integrity, scientific journals should consider adopting policies concerning retractions and corrections similar to the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Funding agencies and institutions should take steps to ensure that articles affected by misconduct are retracted or corrected.

摘要

我们审查了美国研究诚信办公室从 1992 年到 2011 年公布的所有 208 个涉及官方研究不端行为调查结果的已结案案例,以确定科学家在撤回或更正通知中提及与相关文章存在道德问题的频率。这些案例中有 75 个引用了至少一篇受到不当行为影响的已发表文章,总计涉及 174 篇文章。在这 174 篇文章中,我们找到了 127 篇文章及其撤回或更正声明。由于这 127 篇已发表声明中有 8 篇仅包含“撤回”一词,因此我们的分析重点放在其余 119 篇发表了更详细的撤回或更正声明的文章上。在这 119 篇声明中,只有 41.2% 提到了道德问题(而且只有 32.8% 提到了具体的道德问题,如捏造、伪造或抄袭),而其他 58.8% 则将撤回或更正的原因描述为错误、数据丢失或复制失败,而实际上存在不端行为。在针对不当行为的官方调查结果而发表的声明中(在所研究的时间范围内),提到道德问题的比例近年来明显高于早些年,而明确指出具体问题的比例也是如此。为了促进研究诚信,科学期刊应考虑采用类似于出版伦理委员会制定的撤回和更正指南的政策。资助机构和机构应采取措施确保受到不当行为影响的文章被撤回或更正。

相似文献

1
Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings.与不当行为调查结果相关的科学撤稿和更正。
J Med Ethics. 2013 Jan;39(1):46-50. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100766. Epub 2012 Sep 1.
2
[Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research].[生物医学研究中的诚信与不当行为]
Rev Chil Pediatr. 2019 Apr;90(2):217-221. doi: 10.32641/rchped.v90i2.1034.
3
Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?科学文献中的撤稿:研究造假的发生率在增加吗?
J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr;37(4):249-53. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040923. Epub 2010 Dec 24.
4
Inaction over retractions of identified fraudulent publications: ongoing weakness in the system of scientific self-correction.对已确认的欺诈性出版物的撤稿行动不力:科学自我修正系统的持续弱点。
Account Res. 2018;25(4):239-253. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1450143. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
5
Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study.因伦理问题而需撤回的文章的去向:一项描述性横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e85846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085846. eCollection 2014.
6
Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008.为何以及如何期刊撤回文章?对 Medline 1988-2008 年撤稿的分析。
J Med Ethics. 2011 Sep;37(9):567-70. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040964. Epub 2011 Apr 12.
7
Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018.1970 年至 2018 年间发表的遗传学文章被撤稿的原因和时间。
J Med Genet. 2019 Nov;56(11):734-740. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
8
Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.健康与生命科学研究中的科研不端行为:巴西机构撤回文献的系统综述。
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 15;14(4):e0214272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214272. eCollection 2019.
9
Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central.论文撤稿原因:对BioMed Central撤稿通知的回顾性横断面研究
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 23;6(11):e012047. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047.
10
Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study.发表不当行为和抄袭撤稿:一项系统的、回顾性研究。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2012 Oct;28(10):1575-83. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2012.728131. Epub 2012 Oct 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Addressing Errors in Scientific Publishing: The Role of Errata.纠正科学出版中的错误:勘误表的作用。
JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2024 Sep;62(277):558-559. doi: 10.31729/jnma.8759. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
2
Critical reflections on "Analyzing Retraction trends in urology: A comprehensive study over the last decade" by Yanes et al.对亚内斯等人所著《分析泌尿外科撤稿趋势:过去十年的全面研究》的批判性反思
World J Urol. 2025 Jul 8;43(1):421. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05803-1.
3
Plagiarism in Publications: All about Being Fair!出版物中的剽窃行为:一切关乎公平!

本文引用的文献

1
Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.科学出版:撤稿的麻烦。
Nature. 2011 Oct 5;478(7367):26-8. doi: 10.1038/478026a.
2
Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?科学文献中的撤稿:研究造假的发生率在增加吗?
J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr;37(4):249-53. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040923. Epub 2010 Dec 24.
3
Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor.社科期刊科研不端行为政策与影响因子
Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2025 Jan 9;35(Suppl 1):S36-S45. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1791745. eCollection 2025 Jan.
4
A systematic review of ENT retractions.耳鼻喉科手术牵拉的系统评价。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Feb;282(2):1041-1048. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08980-8. Epub 2024 Oct 14.
5
The Ability of ChatGPT in Paraphrasing Texts and Reducing Plagiarism: A Descriptive Analysis.ChatGPT 在文本改写和降低抄袭方面的能力:描述性分析。
JMIR Med Educ. 2024 Jul 8;10:e53308. doi: 10.2196/53308.
6
Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.与科研不端行为行政处分严重程度相关的因素:对1993年至2023年科研诚信办公室案例摘要的分析
Account Res. 2025 Apr;32(3):417-438. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2287046. Epub 2023 Nov 30.
7
The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.亚洲地区学术不端和剽窃行为的文化背景。
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Mar 27;38(12):e88. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e88.
8
Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.因研究不端行为而撤回的文章在重新提交时的作者问题。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2022 Jul 7;28(4):31. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00386-1.
9
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.研究伦理:世界一流大学撤稿情况概述
Scientometrics. 2021;126(8):6871-6889. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03987-y. Epub 2021 May 23.
10
A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases.一项以研究伦理和研究诚信案例为特色的文献综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Apr 30;22(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8.
Account Res. 2010 Mar;17(2):79-84. doi: 10.1080/08989621003641181.
4
Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?科研文献中的撤稿:是不当行为还是失误?
Med J Aust. 2006 Aug 7;185(3):152-4. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x.
5
Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?科学署名。第一部分。洞察科学欺诈的窗口?
Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):17-30. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.
6
Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals.高影响力生物医学期刊的撤稿政策。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Apr;92(2):242-50.
7
Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine.医学论文撤稿对引用及实践的影响。
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999 Oct;87(4):437-43.