Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep;28(9):3847-55.
doi: 10.1096/fj.14-256735. Epub 2014 Jun 13.

Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature

Arturo Casadevall  1 , R Grant Steen  2 , Ferric C Fang  3
Affiliations

Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature

Arturo Casadevall et al. FASEB J. 2014 Sep.

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 A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature.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.

Keywords: bibliometric analysis; biomedical publishing; ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A) Distribution of the major categories of error leading to retraction. B) Distribution of the major identifiable subcategories of laboratory error.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Countries of origin of articles retracted due to error. Percentage of error-related retractions by country is shown in comparison to the percentage of retractions for misconduct/suspected misconduct (9). *P ≤ 0.001; χ2 test.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Errata and error-related related retractions over time. Data from PubMed 1980–2011, inclusive. Decline in errata is nonsignificant (P=0.07); increase in error-related retractions is significant (P<0.0001).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jefferson T. (1792) Letter to George Washington, 16 May 1792, Philadelphia, PA
    1. Begley C. G., Ellis L. M. (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 - PubMed
    1. Prinz F., Schlange T., Asadullah K. (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712. - PubMed
    1. Dwan K., Altman D. G., Arnaiz J. A., Bloom J., Chan A. W., Cronin E., Decullier E., Easterbrook P. J., Von Elm E., Gamble C., Ghersi D., Ioannidis J. P., Simes J., Williamson P. R. (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 3, e3081. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McGauran N., Wieseler B., Kreis J., Schuler Y. B., Kolsch H., Kaiser T. (2010) Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 11, 37. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms