Skip to main content

OOMPH Library Resources: Second On-Campus Week & PHW 289: Article Retraction Case Study


Below is a case of a retracted yet highly cited study.
You will use various tools and library resources to investigate this retracted article, in an attempt to make a conclusion as to the ethical and other issues surrounding this case.

Retraction: An Introduction

A Retracted Article

Citation Analysis of the Retracted Article

About the Author

The Controversy and Possible Outcomes


Is peer review a solution?

» Read: Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (CJ Huag; N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2393-2395 | DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1512330) 

Maybe "open peer review"

» Read: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (van Rooyen, et al., BMJ 1999: 318(7175): 23–27 | doi:

» Read: Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (van Rooyen, et al., BMJ 2010: 341:c5729 | doi:

What about "open science"?

» Read: Transparency: the emerging third dimension of Open Science and Open Data (L Lyon; LIBER Q 2016: 25(4), 153-171 | DOI:10.18352/lq.10113)

» Read: Bring On the Transparency Index (A Marcus, I Oransky; The Scientist 2012 August: 26(8))

What do you think?

Copyright © 2014-2016 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License.