Yes, I understand the difference between the two studies. The interesting thing to me is that the author claimed not to have set out to find fraudulent practices, but only to determine why more articles were being withdrawn after publication. He claims the answer rather surprised him.
FYI: I received a copy of the following study by sending the following to the author.
E-mail: arturo.casadevall@einstein.yu.edu
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
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.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
