Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?

Sara B Nath, Steven C Marcus and Benjamin G Druss
Med J Aust 2006; 185 (3): 152-154.


Objective: To determine how commonly articles are retracted on the basis of unintentional mistakes, and whether these articles differ from those retracted for scientific misconduct in authorship, funding, type of study, publication, and time to retraction.

Data source and study selection: All retractions of English language publications indexed in MEDLINE between 1982 and 2002 were extracted.

Data extraction: Two reviewers categorised the reasons for retraction of each article as misconduct (falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism) or unintentional error (mistakes in sampling, procedures, or data analysis; failure to reproduce findings; accidental omission of information about methods or data analysis).

Data synthesis: Of the 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, 107 (27.1%) were retracted because of scientific misconduct, 244 (61.8%) because of unintentional errors, and 44 (11.1%) could not be categorised. Compared with articles retracted because of misconduct, articles with unintentional mistakes were more likely to have multiple authors, no reported funding source, and to be published in frequently cited journals. They were more likely to be retracted by the author(s) of the article, and the retraction was more likely to occur more promptly (mean, 2.0 years; 95% CI, 1.8–2.2) than articles withdrawn because of misconduct (mean, 3.3 years; 95% CI, 2.7–3.9) (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Conclusions: Retractions in the biomedical literature were more than twice as likely to result from unintentional mistakes than from scientific misconduct. The different characteristics of articles retracted for misconduct and for mistakes reflect distinct causes and, potentially, distinct solutions.

  • Sara B Nath1
  • Steven C Marcus2
  • Benjamin G Druss3

  • 1 Bryn Mawr Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research, Bryn Mawr, Pa, USA.
  • 2 School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA.
  • 3 Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga, USA.


Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. National Library of Medicine; National Institutes of Health. Errata, retraction, duplicate publication, comment, update and patient summary policy for MEDLINE. (accessed Jun 2006).
  • 2. Friedman PJ. Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. JAMA 1990; 263: 1416-1419.
  • 3. Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA 1990; 263: 1420-1423.
  • 4. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to publications. JAMA 1998; 280: 296-297.
  • 5. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994; 272: 1851-1857.
  • 6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated February 2006. (accessed Jun 2006).
  • 7. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature. The Stephen E Bruening case. JAMA 1990; 263: 1424-1426.
  • 8. Whitely WP, Rennie D, Hafner AW. The scientific community’s response to evidence of fraudulent publication. The Robert Slutsky case. JAMA 1994; 272: 170-173.
  • 9. US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Fact Sheet. Research misconduct — a new definition and new procedures for federal research agencies. 1999. (accessed Jun 2006).
  • 10. Thomson ISI. Journal citation reports. Science Edition. Philadelphia: Thomson, 2002.
  • 11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
  • 12. Eisner MD, Shiboski SC, Yelin EH, et al. Retraction. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162 (3 Pt 1): 788.
  • 13. Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, et al. Retraction. Science 2003; 301: 1479.
  • 14. Druss BG, Marcus SC. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc 2005; 93: 499-501.
  • 15. Greene PR. Independent re-analysis of identical data sets: implications for peer review. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; 2005 Sept 16-18; Chicago, Ill, USA.
  • 16. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  • 17. Druss B. Understanding errors in the research process. Lancet 2004; 363: 1230.
  • 18. Garfield E. Journal editors owe readers timely action on retractions. The Scientist 1989; 3: 332-333. (accessed Jun 2006).
  • 19. Garfield E. How to avoid spreading error. Scientists must search for corrections. The Scientist 1987; 1: 255-257. (accessed Jun 2006).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.