Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals
- PMID: 15098054
- PMCID: PMC385306
Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose is to review the issue of retraction in the scientific literature and to examine the policies on retraction of major biomedical journals.
Method: The historical background of this issue was investigated through a literature search. The Instructions to Authors of 122 major biomedical journals were reviewed for evidence of a policy on the retraction of articles. Editors of those journals with no mention of retraction in their Instructions to Authors were contacted by email and/or postal mail.
Results: Sixty-two percent of the journals investigated did not post or report having a policy on issuing retractions. Only twenty-one (18%) did. The remainder did not post any policy and did not respond to inquiries.
Discussion: Including policies in Instructions to Authors relating to the principled conduct of research and publication will improve the ethical environment in which the scientific community works.
References
-
- Soriano CG. Pitt, Aniston expect a retraction. USA Today. 2001 Jul. 24:DO2.
-
- Marks P. A flawed call adds to high drama. New York Times. 2000 Nov. 8:Bl.
-
- Bumiller E. Bush aide attacks Clinton on Mideast, then retracts remark. New York Times. 2002 Mar. 1:A10.
-
- Jacoby M. Elements 118 and 116 retracted. Chem Eng News. 2001 Aug 6. 79(32):10.
-
- Anonymous. News release was a hoax; Cel-Sci says. The Washington Post. 2002 Jun. 13:E5.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources