{"id":110386,"date":"2013-03-20T14:58:36","date_gmt":"2013-03-20T17:58:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=110386"},"modified":"2013-03-20T15:25:01","modified_gmt":"2013-03-20T18:25:01","slug":"more-fraud-than-errors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/more-fraud-than-errors\/","title":{"rendered":"More fraud than errors"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An analysis published in the journal <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/i> suggests that scientific misconduct, such as fraud and plagiarism, is more frequently the cause of retraction of articles by scientific journals than unintentional errors. Arturo Casadevall, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, analyzed 2,047 articles retracted by the medical journals that had published them.<\/p>\n<p>He concluded that 67% were due to misconduct, and 43.4% were due to fraud, 14.2% were duplicate publications and 9.8% were due to plagiarism. Only 21% of the total were related to unintentional errors. The remaining 12% could not be classified, since most publications do not usually indicate the reason for the retraction. Most cases of misconduct involve major journals such as <i>Science<\/i>, <i>Nature <\/i>and <i>Cell<\/i>, which, according to Casadevall, suggests a correlation between the occurrence of fraud and publications with a high impact factor.<\/p>\n<p>The article\u2019s conclusion contradicts those of two studies published in 2006 and 2011, which claimed that errors were the most frequent cause of article retraction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"More fraud than errors","protected":false},"author":475,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[155],"tags":[],"coauthors":[785],"class_list":["post-110386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-practices"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110386"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=110386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}