Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1096/fj.14-256735

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1096/fj.14-256735
suck pdf from google scholar
C5395722!5395722!24928194
unlimited free pdf from europmc24928194    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid24928194      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 PMID24928194show 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 A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature.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.?Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., Fang, F. C. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature.
  • ä


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box