Sharp Rise in Scientific Journal Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2012 7:58 PM GMT
    I have to wonder if there's any relationship with the appearance that more scientists are becoming increasingly political. But there's also the freakonomics effect...

    In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent. In 2010 The Journal of Medical Ethics published a study finding the new raft of recent retractions was a mix of misconduct and honest scientific mistakes.

    Several factors are at play here, scientists say. One may be that because journals are now online, bad papers are simply reaching a wider audience, making it more likely that errors will be spotted. “You can sit at your laptop and pull a lot of different papers together,” Dr. Fang said.

    But other forces are more pernicious. To survive professionally, scientists feel the need to publish as many papers as possible, and to get them into high-profile journals. And sometimes they cut corners or even commit misconduct to get there.

    To measure this claim, Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall looked at the rate of retractions in 17 journals from 2001 to 2010 and compared it with the journals’ “impact factor,” a score based on how often their papers are cited by scientists. The higher a journal’s impact factor, the two editors found, the higher its retraction rate.

    The highest “retraction index” in the study went to one of the world’s leading medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine. In a statement for this article, it questioned the study’s methodology, noting that it considered only papers with abstracts, which are included in a small fraction of studies published in each issue. “Because our denominator was low, the index was high,” the statement said.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2590

    Apr 17, 2012 9:33 PM GMT
    Scientific priority may be at work as well, causing scientists to rush to print before all the details and interpretations are worked out lest someone else beat them to it.