Suppr超能文献

撤回的科学文献中的错误来源。

Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature.

作者信息

Casadevall Arturo, Steen R Grant, Fang Ferric C

机构信息

Department of Microbiology and Immunology and Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, New York, USA;

MediCC! Medical Communications Consultants, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; and.

出版信息

FASEB J. 2014 Sep;28(9):3847-55. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-256735. Epub 2014 Jun 13.

Abstract

Retraction of flawed articles is an important mechanism for correction of the scientific literature. We recently reported that the majority of retractions are associated with scientific misconduct. In the current study, we focused on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the major causes of error. Analysis of the retraction notices for 423 articles indexed in PubMed revealed that the most common causes of error-related retraction are laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results. The most common laboratory errors are contamination and problems relating to molecular biology procedures (e.g., sequencing, cloning). Retractions due to contamination were more common in the past, whereas analytical errors are now increasing in frequency. A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature. In particular, few cases of retraction due to cell line contamination were found despite recognition that this problem has affected numerous publications. An understanding of the errors leading to retraction can guide practices to improve laboratory research and the integrity of the scientific literature. Perhaps most important, our analysis has identified major problems in the mechanisms used to rectify the scientific literature and suggests a need for action by the scientific community to adopt protocols that ensure the integrity of the publication process.

摘要

撤回有缺陷的文章是纠正科学文献的一项重要机制。我们最近报告称,大多数撤回都与科研不端行为有关。在当前的研究中,我们聚焦于那些未发现存在不当行为的撤回文章子集,以确定主要的错误原因。对PubMed索引的423篇文章的撤稿通知进行分析后发现,与错误相关的撤稿最常见的原因是实验室错误、分析错误和不可重复的结果。最常见的实验室错误是污染以及与分子生物学程序相关的问题(如测序、克隆)。因污染导致的撤稿在过去更为常见,而如今分析错误的发生频率正在上升。许多尽管被证明存在重大错误但尚未被撤回的出版物表明,撤稿障碍可能会阻碍文献的纠正。特别是,尽管认识到细胞系污染问题已影响众多出版物,但因细胞系污染导致撤稿的情况却很少见。了解导致撤稿的错误可以指导实践,以改进实验室研究并提升科学文献的完整性。或许最重要的是,我们的分析已经确定了用于纠正科学文献的机制中存在的主要问题,并表明科学界需要采取行动,采用确保出版过程完整性的方案。

相似文献

1
Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature.
FASEB J. 2014 Sep;28(9):3847-55. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-256735. Epub 2014 Jun 13.
2
Retracted publications in the drug literature.
Pharmacotherapy. 2012 Jul;32(7):586-95. doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01100.x. Epub 2012 May 11.
3
Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 15;14(4):e0214272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214272. eCollection 2019.
4
A survey of retracted articles in dentistry.
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Jul 6;10(1):253. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y.
5
An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2024 May;56(3):478-485. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12952. Epub 2023 Dec 20.
6
Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?
Med J Aust. 2006 Aug 7;185(3):152-4. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x.
7
Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Sep;173:111427. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111427. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
8
Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications.
Account Res. 2018;25(4):212-219. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1449651. Epub 2018 Mar 21.
9
Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Mar;13(1):5-24. doi: 10.1007/s11948-006-0003-1.
10
[Retractions due to errors and frauds].
Presse Med. 2012 Sep;41(9 Pt 1):847-52. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2012.05.006. Epub 2012 Jul 27.

引用本文的文献

1
ISSCR standards for the use of human stem cells in basic research.
Stem Cell Reports. 2023 Sep 12;18(9):1744-1752. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2023.08.003.
3
Prediction and Construction of Energetic Materials Based on Machine Learning Methods.
Molecules. 2022 Dec 31;28(1):322. doi: 10.3390/molecules28010322.
4
Good scientific practice in EEG and MEG research: Progress and perspectives.
Neuroimage. 2022 Aug 15;257:119056. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119056. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
5
Best practices in statistical computing.
Stat Med. 2021 Nov 30;40(27):6057-6068. doi: 10.1002/sim.9169. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
7
Seven quick tips for analysis scripts in neuroimaging.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2020 Mar 26;16(3):e1007358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007358. eCollection 2020 Mar.
8
Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 May 12;2:5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1. eCollection 2017.
9
Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr;25(2):621-629. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0027-3. Epub 2018 Feb 5.
10
Graduate Biomedical Science Education Needs a New Philosophy.
mBio. 2017 Dec 19;8(6):e01539-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01539-17.

本文引用的文献

1
Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.
PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563. Epub 2013 Dec 3.
2
Revised standards for statistical evidence.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 26;110(48):19313-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313476110. Epub 2013 Nov 11.
4
Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 8;8(7):e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397. Print 2013.
5
Computational science. Troubling trends in scientific software use.
Science. 2013 May 17;340(6134):814-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1231535.
6
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 May;14(5):365-76. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
7
Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science.
Source Code Biol Med. 2013 Feb 28;8(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-8-7.
9
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028-33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109. Epub 2012 Oct 1.
10
Accuracy of data transfer: double data entry and estimating levels of error.
J Clin Nurs. 2012 Oct;21(19-20):2730-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04353.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验