Biotech Values

[hptaxis]

FYI: I received a copy of the following study by sending the following to the author.

E-mail: [e-mail]

Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD
Professor, Department of Microbiology & Immunology
Professor, Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases)
Leo and Julia Forchheimer Chair in Microbiology & Immunology
Chair, Department of Microbiology & Immunology
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jack and Pearl Resnick Campus
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Forchheimer Building, Room 411
Bronx, NY 10461


Can you provide a copy of the article:

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.abstract

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ~10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.