Acta Bioethica ISSN: 0717-5906 [email protected] Universidad de Chile Chile Sheth, Bhavisha P.; Thaker, Vrinda S. SCIENTIFIC RETRACTION: A SYNONYM FOR PSEUDOSCIENCE? Acta Bioethica, vol. 20, núm. 1, junio, 2014, pp. 93-97 Universidad de Chile Santiago, Chile Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55431250010 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Acta Bioethica 2014; 20 (1): 93-97 SCIENTIFIC RETRACTION: A SYNONYM FOR PSEUDOSCIENCE? Bhavisha P. Sheth1, Vrinda S. Thaker1 Abstract: The phenomenon of scientific retraction is a shameful act for the scientific community, but a necessity to maintain the purity of science. The two main causes for retractions include plagiarism and research misconduct. The post retraction citation of articles is again a repetition of inappropriateness. Hence the editorial, peer review policies should be revised and the retractions should be publicized more to avoid the citation of the invalid literature. Also, the scientific readership has a responsibility to evaluate the scientific validity of published studies. Key words: retraction, plagiarism, misconduct, citation Retractación científica: ¿un sinónimo de seudociencia? Resumen: El fenómeno de la retractación científica constituye una vergüenza para la comunidad científica, pero es necesario para mantener la pureza de la ciencia. Las dos causas principales de retractación son el plagio y faltas en la conducta de inves- tigación. La citación de artículos posterior a su retractación es, de nuevo, una repetición inapropiada. Por lo tanto, la editorial y las normas de evaluación por pares debieran revisarse y las retractaciones publicarse más para evitar las citaciones de literatura inválida. También los lectores científicos tienen la responsabilidad de evaluar la validez científica de los estudios publicados. Palabras clave: retractación, plagio, faltas en la conducta de investigación, citación Retratação científica: um sinônimo de pseudociência? Resumo: O fenômeno de retratação científica é uma vergonhosa atitude para a comunidade científica, mas uma necessidade para manter a pureza da ciência. As duas principais causas para a retratação incluem o plágio e a má conduta na pesquisa. A citação após retratação de artigos é novamente uma repetida inadequação. Daí porque o editorial e a política de revisão por pares devem ser revistas e as retratações deveriam ser mais divulgadas para evitar uma citação inválida da literatura. Ademais, o revisor científico tem uma responsabilidade de avaliar a validade científica dos estudos publicados. Palavras-chave: retratação, plágio, má conduta, citação 1 Department of Biosciences, Saurashtra University, Rajkot Gujarat, India Correspondence: [email protected] 93 Scientific Retraction: A synonym for pseudoscience? - Bhavisha P. Sheth, Vrinda S. Thaker Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning exponential increase in the Pubmed retractions “knowledge”) is an endeavor that systematizes from 1977 to 2010(6). knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions of the worldly facts(1). Scholastic publishing is the process of placing the results of one’s research into the literature. Publication in scholarly journals is an essential part of the scien- tific research process(2). The purpose of it being the updating and sharing of knowledge in broad sense along with other implicit factors like fund- ing, carrier advancement, competitive grants, awards etc.(3). Every discipline relies on the in- tegrity of its literature. The implicit assumption about the authors is that their contributions to journals reflect their meticulousness and hones- ty. Everybody concerned to the discipline has a vested interest in the accuracy and authenticity of Figure 1: The plot here shows exponential in- what is communicated. Henceforth all the litera- crease in the nº of retraction (Y axis) from 1977- ture resources maintain high standards to ensure 2010 (X Axis) the legitimacy of the research and scientific con- But closer research shows that growing or not, duct(4). these formal retractions are likely just the tip of In general, a retraction of a published scientific ar- the iceberg(7,8). Some of them are untouched of ticle indicates that the original article should not the notice of the common public. have been published and that its data and conclu- The two main causes of retractions of scientific sions should not be used as part of the foundation published articles are research error or miscon- for future research. Retractions always negate the duct and plagiarism. The former in the form of author’s previous public support for the original inefficiency of the author to reproduce the results. statement. They typically indicate a major prob- A more detailed explanation is as follows: lem with the research of enough significance to invalidate its findings. As such, they represent a • Misconduct was classified, using the defini- threat both to the integrity of the scientific lit- tions of scientific misconduct from the US erature and to any future studies based on the er- Office of Science and Technology Policy, roneous conclusions(5). It is a shameful phenom- as either fabrication (making up data or re- enon for the scientific community as a whole; as sults and recording or reporting on them); ethics are the base of science and breaching those falsification (manipulating research materi- indicate pseudoscience and dishonesty. als, equipment, or processes; or changing or omitting data or results such that the research Causes and statistical implications is not accurately represented in the research Approximately, 1.4 million papers are published record); or plagiarism (the appropriation of every year, only a few of them are retracted and another person’s ideas, processes, results, or fewer coming to the notice of the public. Ac- words without giving appropriate credit). cording to the data from Thomson Reuters “Web • Mistakes were defined as reported errors in of Science” database, courtesy of Times Higher sampling, procedures, or data analysis; failure Education, five out of 689752 were retracted in to reproduce findings or accidental omission 1990, which rose to the retraction of 95 papers of key information from methods or analy- out of 1.4 million papers published in 2008. So, sis(5). the retractions are increasing rapidly, in line with the number of publications. Figure 1 shows the 94 Acta Bioethica 2014; 20 (1): 93-97 Retractions for fraud (data fabrication or data to have been copied from other papers. Based on falsification) may represent a purposeful effort the study, researchers estimate that there may be to deceive, a motivation fundamentally different as many as 200,000 duplicates among some 17 from those for error(6). Compared with an earlier million papers in leading research database Med- study(9) of retractions for the years 1966–1994, line(12). the study by(10) found (1) a significantly high- er rate of retraction (0.0021% versus 0.0065%, Checkpoints in Retraction p,0.0001 by test of proportions), (2) a decrease in the mean time from publication to retraction The actual reasons for the rising tide of retrac- (from 28 months to 21 months), and (3) a de- tions may be the rigorous post publication edito- crease in the proportion of retractions initiated rial process as well as the use of various plagia- by authors (from 81% to 67%) (see table 1), sug- rism detection softwares. Plagiarism checker like gesting that others have become involved in over- iThenticate is designed to catch misconduct and sight. plagiarism prior to submission, preventing the need for retractions. One tool developed in 2006 Table 1: Agents of retraction of scientific articles, by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner’s laboratory and reasons for retraction(10) at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà Vu(13), an open-access database containing several thousand instances of Variable Budd’s study Redman et al study duplicate publication. It is based on the use of (14) (n=235) (n=315) text data mining algorithm eTBLAST , also developed in the same lab. Agent of retraction (per cent) Missing - 4 Attention needed on post retraction citations All authors 81 48 Little is known about the ultimate scientific fate Some authors 19 of retracted, invalid literature. The consequences Editor/publisher 19 17 of scientific retractions are the inappropriate cita- tion of the retracted articles. The continuation of Other* - 12 the citations of the retracted papers in literature Primary reason for retraction (per cent) symbolizes the inadequacy of the current meth- Research error 39 22 ods of notification. Institutions should promote Inability to reproduce 16 20 a culture of responsibility, supporting authors to provide sound articles. Reviewers and readers Plagiarism - 17 should raise concerns with the editor to enable Research misconduct 37¤ 17 prompt and appropriate investigation. If sub- No reason given - 12 stantiated, a retraction statement or expression of concern should be publicized in both print and Other 9 11 electronic media according to guidelines. Journals – Category not used. *Attorney, editor, sponsor, institutional official often with author, should require prospective authors to declare that or not clear. they have checked their manuscript’s