Library Guides: Vision Science: Article Retraction

Introduction

Articles occasionally get retracted (for honest mistakes or nefarious reasons), and this is something researchers need to be aware of. The resources on this webpage will help you explore the topic and make you aware of the issues.

Retraction: An Introduction

Retracted Publication:
A "work consisting of the designation of an article or book as retracted in whole or in part by an author or authors or an authorized representative. It identifies a citation previously published and now retracted through a formal issuance from the author, publisher, or other authorized agent..."
A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature
Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e44118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118. Epub 2012 Oct 24.
From the abstract:
Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct.
Since this article, there have been many looking at retraction, including several that note the relatively high retraction rate for COVID-related articles (example).
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013 Jul 8;8(7):e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2013;8(7).
doi:10.1371/annotation/0d28db18-e117-4804-b1bc-e2da285103ac. PubMed PMID:
23861902; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3704583.
The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019
Vuong, Q-H. Learned Publishing, 2020. 33: 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282.
Only 10% of retracted articles provide adequate information about the reasons for retraction; 53% of retraction notices do not say who initiated the retraction, and the majority of retracted articles have inadequate statements of limitations. A small percentage of authors perform ‘heroic acts’ by retracting their articles before another person has identified problems.
Locating retracted publications in databases (U Mass Amherst)
Similar methods may be used to locate retractions in databases, although no single method is obvious. Searching various databases for title entries including 'retracted article' or 'retracted publication' or 'retraction of publication' produces results that include articles that have been retracted, and occasionally include other uses of the search terms as well.
Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)
Scientific misconduct includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images; and plagiarism. When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures ... and if the investigation proves scientific misconduct, publish a retraction of the article.

A Retracted Article

Effect of vitamin and trace-element supplementation on immune responses and infection in elderly subjects.
Chandra, Ranjit K. Effect of vitamin and trace-element supplementation on immune responses and infection in elderly subjects. Lancet. 1992 Nov 7; 340(8828):1124-7.
PubMed Record
Note the retraction statement. When was the article retracted?
Retraction Notice
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):417. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00166-5.

Citation Analysis of the Retracted Article

Find citing articles in Web of Science
How many times has this article been cited in Web of Science? How recent is the most recent citing article? How many times has the citing article that itself has been cited the most been cited?
Find citing articles in Scopus
How many times has this article been cited in Scopus? How recent is the most recent citing article? How many times has the citing article that itself has been cited the most been cited?
Extra credit: Can you find the citing articles from UC Berkeley authors? Do you see a common theme among these three?
Find citing articles in Google Scholar
How many times has this article been cited in Google Scholar? (Note: This number is likely highly inflated due to duplicate entries). How recent is the most recent citing article? How many times has the citing article that itself has been cited the most been cited?

About the Author

Author Profile in Scopus
Hint: Start at the article record and click the author name.
Note the number of publications, the number of co-authors, and the number of citations.
Google Patent Search
Hint: Search last name, first name.
Notice anything about what he is patenting..?
Personal Website (available via the Internet Archive)
His personal website (http://drrkchandra.com) is gone. However, put the URL in an Internet Archive Wayback Machine search (using the link above), and pick a date in early 2016 or earlier to view it.
(Did you know you could look up any website in the Wayback Machine to see how it looked in the past?)

The Controversy and Possible Outcomes

RetractionWatch Story: Lancet retracts 24-year-old paper by “father of nutritional immunology” after reopening inquiry
Following questions from outside experts, a retraction of a related paper, a university investigation and a court case, The Lancet has [in January 2016] decided to retract a 1992 paper by Ranjit Kumar Chandra, the self-proclaimed “father of nutritional immunology.”
Wikipedia Article
Ranjit Kumar Chandra ... is a researcher in the field of nutrition and immunology who has been accused of committing scientific fraud .... His fraud was also the subject of a 2006 documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. A jury trial in July, 2015, concluded that the allegations of fraud were truthful. Due to these allegations, a number of his scientific articles have been subject to retractions.
More from RetractionWatch: After court verdict, BMJ retracts 26-year-old paper
Today [28 October 2015], The BMJ retracted a 1989 paper about the role of breastfeeding and formula in infant eczema — 20 years after the data were called into question by a university report.
The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature.
Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1420-3. PubMed PMID: 2406475.
From the Abstract:
Little is known about the ultimate scientific fate of retracted, invalid literature. We identified 82 completely retracted articles by electronic and manual methods and measured their subsequent use in the scientific literature by performing citation analysis. After retraction, these studies were cited, for support of scientific concepts, 733 times.
Retractions (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18499)
One finding: New articles and funding flows into fields represented by retracted articles decrease after a retraction.
... Is this bad?

Solutions..?

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: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23)

» 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: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729)

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?

Secondary menu

Vision Science: Article Retraction