Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=24928194
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\24928194
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 FASEB+J
2014 ; 28
(9
): 3847-55
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature
#MMPMID24928194
Casadevall A
; Steen RG
; Fang FC
FASEB J
2014[Sep]; 28
(9
): 3847-55
PMID24928194
show ga
Retraction of flawed articles is an important mechanism for correction of the
scientific literature. We recently reported that the majority of retractions are
associated with scientific misconduct. In the current study, we focused on the
subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to
identify the major causes of error. Analysis of the retraction notices for 423
articles indexed in PubMed revealed that the most common causes of error-related
retraction are laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results.
The most common laboratory errors are contamination and problems relating to
molecular biology procedures (e.g., sequencing, cloning). Retractions due to
contamination were more common in the past, whereas analytical errors are now
increasing in frequency. A number of publications that have not been retracted
despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to
retraction may impede correction of the literature. In particular, few cases of
retraction due to cell line contamination were found despite recognition that
this problem has affected numerous publications. An understanding of the errors
leading to retraction can guide practices to improve laboratory research and the
integrity of the scientific literature. Perhaps most important, our analysis has
identified major problems in the mechanisms used to rectify the scientific
literature and suggests a need for action by the scientific community to adopt
protocols that ensure the integrity of the publication process.
free
free
free
