{"id":223043,"date":"2016-08-22T12:57:48","date_gmt":"2016-08-22T15:57:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/?p=223043"},"modified":"2016-08-22T12:57:48","modified_gmt":"2016-08-22T15:57:48","slug":"localized-effects-of-retraction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/localized-effects-of-retraction\/","title":{"rendered":"Localized effects of retraction"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"BoasPraticas_242aa\"Daniel Bueno<\/span>A study by six researchers from Thomason Reuters, a communications company that produces data on science, examined the impact that cases of scientific misconduct have on their surroundings and concluded that the damage is concentrated on the retracted articles and their principal authors, and does not affect the institution where the researcher accused of fraud or plagiarism worked.\u00a0 Those who inadvertently cited the canceled article in their papers or published other papers in co-authorship with the accused researcher also retain their academic reputation, seemingly exempt from the deleterious effects of the retraction.\u00a0 These findings were published in February 2015 on the electronic repository arXiv (pronounced \u201carchive\u201d in English).<\/p>\n

Researchers analyzed 2,659 articles in various fields of knowledge that had been retracted between 1980 and 2014.\u00a0 All had been indexed in the Thomson Reuters database known as the Web of Science.\u00a0 The study identified the reason for the request for retraction for 1,666 of the papers.\u00a0 More than 25% of the cases involved plagiarism.\u00a0 Approximately 24% of retractions resulted from unintentional errors committed by authors and about 23% of the articles were canceled because of data falsification or fabrication.\u00a0 One theory espoused by the authors of the research is that plagiarism has become more frequent owing to the increasing availability of scientific literature on the Internet.<\/p>\n

The study also found that authors of retracted papers are cited less frequently after they were discovered.\u00a0 Authors who falsified or fabricated data suffer greater damage to their reputations than those who committed unintentional errors, and press coverage of the scandal enhances that effect.\u00a0 The institutions or fields of knowledge with which the retracted article was associated suffer practically no impact.\u00a0 The study cited as example Woo-Suk Hwang, author of two fraudulent articles about stem cells published in the journal Science<\/i><\/em> in 2004 and 2005.\u00a0 He was severely punished by a drop in citations of his other works but the effect did not extend to the Seoul National University College of Veterinary Medicine, which maintained an ascending curve of citations.\u00a0 The study also shows that retractions occur more often in the medical and biological sciences.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most original aspect of this study is that it assesses the effects of a retraction on institutions and specific fields of knowledge,\u201d states Ferric Fang, an author of research studies about retraction and professor at the University of Washington.\u00a0 \u201cThe evidence that retractions result in a decline in the rate of citations, particularly when there is misconduct, are a sign that the system is working the way it is supposed to,\u201d he told Retraction Watch blog.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Localized effects of retraction","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-223043","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\/223043","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=223043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223043"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=223043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}