“If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.” So said famed physicist Richard Feynman at a lecture about the scientific method at Cornell University in 1964.
Feynman appears to be only half correct, though. Yes, one's proposed theory is wrong if it doesn't agree with experiment. But that's not all there is to it. With carelessness or outright fraud, you can make it seem that your theory is correct — and get it published in a top scientific journal.
Usually, such deception is eventually discovered. This past year was rich in scientific retractions of papers filled with poor processes and, in many cases, blatant fabrications. Here are five from 2019 that made the news in part because they mislead and provide false hope.
5. Creationist's paper retracted '20 million years' later
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, according to many Christian creationists. And on the sixth day of creation, God made three species of timber vole with ribonucleotides that would come to demonstrate the shortcomings of the theory of evolution, according to a 1989 paper in the International Journal of Neuroscience.
Russian scientist Dmitrii Kuznetsov, the author of this paper, claimed that each of these three very closely related voles have ribonucleotides — enzymes that are the building blocks of DNA and thus DNA repair — that are utterly incompatible across the three species. This finding supports “the general creationist concept on the problems of the origin of boundless multitudes of different and harmonically functioning forms of life,” Kuznetsov wrote in the paper.
But did Kuznetsov break the commandment about bearing false witness? Swedish biologist Dan Larhammar, who in 2018 became president of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, questioned Kuznetsov's findings in a letter to the journal published way back in 1994. As reported in The Scientist in November 2019, Larhammar claimed that the results were superficially demonstrated and that many of the references couldn't be verified, even after he contacted scientists cited in the paper.
The International Journal of Neuroscience agreed with Larhammar and retracted the paper, albeit 30 years later. Kuznetsov has been accused multiple times of scientific misconduct, including for his analysis of the Shroud of Turin, which scholars claim originated in the Middle Ages but which Kuznetsov suggested could be the 2,000-year-old death shroud of Jesus.
Why the 30-year delay for a retraction? Thirty years in a 6,000-year-old Earth would be equivalent to 20 million years in a 4-billion-year-old Earth.
Maybe the journal was hesitant to retype the original title, “In Vitro Studies of Interactions Between Frequent and Unique Mrnas and Cytoplasmic Factors from Brain Tissue of Several Species of Wild Timber Voles of Northern Eurasia, Clethrionomys Glareolus, Clethrionomys Frater and Clethrionomys Gapperi: A New Criticism to a Modern Molecular-Genetic Concept of Biological Evolution.”
4. HPV vaccine vindicated once again
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV) has the potential to eliminate most cases of cervical cancer worldwide and save millions of lives. The HPV vaccine can also prevent the majority of vaginal, anal and penile cancers. But that's only if parents vaccinate their children against HPV.
A growing number are opting out over fears that the HPV vaccine is harmful. In Japan, for example, HPV vaccination rates fell from about 70 percent to 1 percent, its current level, in just a few years after unfounded reports of vaccine side effects, according to research published this year in the journal Expert Review of Vaccines.
Guide to Science Information Resources: What is a Retraction?
The Oxford English Dictionary (2018) defines retraction as “the action or fact of revoking or rescinding a decision, decree, etc.” A more thorough definition is, “the action of withdrawing a statement, accusation, etc., which is now admitted to be erroneous or unjustified… recantation; an instance of this; a statement of making such a withdrawal.”
When a retraction is applied to academic or scholarly publishing, it indicates that an article was withdrawn from the publication in which it appeared after it was published. A retraction is issued through a decision made by the publication's editorial board.
In a database search, an article may have “RETRACTED” appear before its title in its brief record. A retraction notice may also appear in search results. Also, the full text of a research article may be labeled, “Retracted.” Both of these indicate that an article has been retracted. See the “Identifying Retractions” tab for examples.
Source: Oxford University Press (2018, July). OED online. https://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164384
A huge database of scientific retractions is live. That’s great for science
“In 1997, just 44 journals reported retracting a paper. By 2016, that number had grown more than 10-fold, to 488,” according to a new analysis of RetractionDatabase.org in Science.
Annette Elizabeth Allen/Vox
The largest ever database of scientific retractions just went live, and it reveals a promising trend: More and more studies are being pulled from the scientific record.
This is a great thing for science.
A retraction means a journal no longer stands by one of its articles. The process can be initiated by a journal or study author after problems are detected, and it typically involves some kind of investigation, and then a statement explaining why claims in the article are being withdrawn or reversed (though some journals are more forthcoming with details than others).
Journal editors don’t take this process lightly and generally issue retractions rarely — even though there’s a growing recognition that published studies are often flawed, sloppy, or downright fraudulent.
Still, an in-depth analysis of the retraction database entries, published in the journal Science, suggests the retraction situation is improving. Before 2000, there were fewer than 100 retractions per year; now there are about 1,000.
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists
“It’s clear the reason we’re seeing more retractions is because a lot more journals want to take this stuff seriously,” argues Ivan Oransky, a doctor, journalist, and professor at New York University who co-created the database with Adam Marcus as a spinoff of their retraction news source, Retraction Watch.
The database brings together more than 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts, going as far back as the 1970s. So anyone can now search by author, country, journal, and a bunch of other metrics to see where and how science has gone wrong.
But even though things are getting better, there’s still a lot of room for improvement. “Most of the 12,000 journals that are also cross-indexed in Web of Science have never retracted,” Oransky found. “So most journals haven’t retracted papers.”
Here are a few more surprising findings from the database:
A significant portion of retractions have nothing to do with scientific misconduct
- The number of retractions is growing: “In 1997, just 44 journals reported retracting a paper. By 2016, that number had grown more than 10-fold, to 488,” according to Science. However, the analysis found the rate of increase in retractions has also slowed, and there’s a good explanation for that: “In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016.”
- Nearly half of retracted papers involved errors or problems with reproducibility — not fraud: The database has a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, and nearly 40 percent of retraction notices on the database did not cite fraud or any misconduct. “Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.”
- China and the US have most retractions: Butthey also publish the most papers. Interestingly, Romania has a disproportionate number of retractions, Oransky said, because “small bands of paper watchers” who picked apart data in published papers made 100 retractions happen.
- Journals with high-impact actors seem to be doing more retracting: Impact factor is a way to assess a journal’s influence, by looking at the average number of citations a journal’s articles have recently attracted. And it turns out more highly ranked journals are doing more retracting. Case in point: The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, had 30 entries on the database. Another top-tier journal, Nature Medicine, had 13. The lower-ranked medical journals EBioMedicine and Oncologist, had one and zero entries, respectively.
- Retractions remain rare: Only four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted, according to Science’s analysis. “And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012.” That’s in part because more papers are getting published every year, so the denominator keeps growing — but it’s also because retractions are rare.
Stigma is one reason we’re not seeing even more retractions
So why are retractions still rare?
The analysis in Science pins it down to stigma for journals and scientists: “Because a retraction is often considered an indication of wrongdoing, many researchers are understandably sensitive when one of their papers is questioned. That stigma, however, might be leading to practices that undermine efforts to protect the integrity of the scientific literature.”
Journals may be hesitant to pull some of their most revered work, or go after scientists who publish their most frequently cited studies. That’s especially true in smaller countries with cozy networks of scientists.
Retractions also remain difficult to spot; journals and science databases don’t always promote or cross-reference them in ways that anyone coming across a study can see.
But perhaps this is where the retraction database can help: it’s easily searchable, so anyone can use it to cross-reference a paper they’re interested in. It also may help normalize retractions so they are seen as part of the scientific process instead of something to be ashamed of.
“Science is not broken,” Oransky said. “The question is whether the science correction mechanism process is as robust as everybody wants it to be. It’s still not, but we are seeing some signs of improvement.”
What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’
Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years.
Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations.
Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis.
The alarming news came with some caveats. Although statistics were sketchy, retractions appeared to be relatively rare, involving only about two of every 10,000 papers. Sometimes the reason for the withdrawal was honest error, not deliberate fraud. And whether suspect papers were becoming more common—or journals were just getting better at recognizing and reporting them—wasn't clear.
Still, the surge in retractions led many observers to call on publishers, editors, and other gatekeepers to make greater efforts to stamp out bad science.
The attention also helped catalyze an effort by two longtime health journalists—Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who founded the blog Retraction Watch, based in New York City—to get more insight into just how many scientific papers were being withdrawn, and why. They began to assemble a list of retractions.
That list, formally released to the public this week as a searchable database, is now the largest and most comprehensive of its kind.
It includes more than 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts dating back to the 1970s (and even one paper from 1756 involving Benjamin Franklin). It is not a perfect window into the world of retractions.
Not all publishers, for instance, publicize or clearly label papers they have retracted, or explain why they did so. And determining which author is responsible for a paper's fatal flaws can be difficult.
Still, the data trove has enabled Science, working with Retraction Watch, to gain unusual insight into one of scientific publishing's most consequential but shrouded practices.
Our analysis of about 10,500 retracted journal articles shows the number of retractions has continued to grow, but it also challenges some worrying perceptions that continue today.
The rise of retractions seems to reflect not so much an epidemic of fraud as a community trying to police itself.
Among the most notable findings:
Although the absolute number of annual retractions has grown, the rate of increase has slowed
The data confirm that the absolute number of retractions has risen over the past few decades, from fewer than 100 annually before 2000 to nearly 1000 in 2014.
But retractions remain relatively rare: Only about four of every 10,000 papers are now retracted. And although the rate roughly doubled from 2003 to 2009, it has remained level since 2012.
In part, that trend reflects a rising denominator: The total number of scientific papers published annually more than doubled from 2003 to 2016.
Much of the rise appears to reflect improved oversight at a growing number of journals
Overall, the number of journals that report retractions has grown. In 1997, just 44 journals reported retracting a paper. By 2016, that number had grown more than 10-fold, to 488. But among journals that have published at least one retraction annually, the average number of retractions per journal has remained largely flat since 1997.
Given the simultaneous rise in retractions, that pattern suggests journals are collectively doing more to police papers, says Daniele Fanelli, a lecturer in research methods at the London School of Economics and Political Science who has co-written several studies of retractions.
(The number per journal would have increased, he argues, if the growing number of retractions resulted primarily because an increased proportion of papers are flawed.)
“Retractions have increased because editorial practices are improving and journals are trying to encourage editors to take retractions seriously,” says Nicholas Steneck, a research ethics expert at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Scientists have kept the pressure on journals by pointing out flaws in papers on public websites such as PubPeer.
In general, journals with high impact factors—a measure of how often papers are cited—have taken the lead in policing their papers after publication.
In 2004, just one-fourth of a sampling of high-impact biomedical journals reported having policies on publishing retractions, according to the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). Then, in 2009, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a nonprofit group in Eastleigh, U.
K., that now advises more than 12,000 journal editors and publishers, released a model policy for how journals should handle retractions. By 2015, two-thirds of 147 high-impact journals, most of them biomedical titles, had adopted such policies, JMLA reported.
Proponents of such policies say they can help journal editors handle reports of flawed papers more consistently and effectively—if the policies are followed.
Journals with lower impact factors also appear to be stepping up their standards, Steneck says. Many journals now use software to detect plagiarism in manuscripts before publication, which can avoid retractions after.
But evidence suggests more editors should step up
A disturbingly large portion of papers—about 2%—contain “problematic” scientific images that experts readily identified as deliberately manipulated, according to a study of 20,000 papers published in mBio in 2016 by Elisabeth Bik of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and colleagues. What's more, our analysis showed that most of the 12,000 journals recorded in Clarivate's widely used Web of Science database of scientific articles have not reported a single retraction since 2003.
Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions
Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.
Nations with smaller scientific communities appear to have a bigger problem with retractions
Retraction rates differ by country, and variations can reflect idiosyncratic factors, such as a particularly active group of whistleblowers publicizing suspect papers.
Such confounding factors make comparing retraction rates across countries harder, Fanelli says.
But generally, authors working in countries that have developed policies and institutions for handling and enforcing rules against research misconduct tend to have fewer retractions, he and his colleagues reported in PLOS ONE in 2015.
A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior
Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.
The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.
Although the number of retractions ballooned after 1997, the percentage of all papers retracted rose more slowly and leveled off after 2012.
’04 * ’06 ’08 ’10 ’12 ’14 ’16 ’18 0 1 2 3 4 5 Retraction rate (per 10,000 papers)
*The rate appears to decline after 2015, but numbers are almost certainly incomplete because of delays in publishing retractions.
(GRAPHIC) J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) RETRACTION WATCH AND NSF; METHODOLOGY
About half of all retractions do appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism—behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10%.
Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. (Such retractions have increased as a share of all retractions, and some experts argue the United States should expand its definition of scientific misconduct to cover those behaviors.
Determining exactly why a paper was withdrawn can be challenging. About 2% of retraction notices, for example, give a vague reason that suggests misconduct, such as an “ethical violation by the author.
” In some of those cases, authors worried about damage to their reputations—and perhaps even the threat of libel lawsuits—have persuaded editors to keep the language vague.
Other notices are fudged: They state a specific reason, such as lack of review board oversight, but Retraction Watch later independently discovered that investigators had actually determined the paper to be fraudulent.
Ironically, the stigma associated with retraction may make the literature harder to clean up
Because a retraction is often considered an indication of wrongdoing, many researchers are understandably sensitive when one of their papers is questioned. That stigma, however, might be leading to practices that undermine efforts to protect the integrity of the scientific literature.
Journal editors may hesitate to hand down the death penalty—even when it's justified. For instance, some papers that once might have been retracted for an honest error or problematic practices are now being “corrected” instead, says Hilda Bastian, who formerly consulted on the U.S.
National Library of Medicine's PubMed database and is now pursuing a doctorate in health science at Bond University in Gold Coast, Australia. (The Retraction Watch database lists some corrections but does not comprehensively track them.) The correction notices can often leave readers wondering what to think.
“It's hard to work out—are you retracting the article or not?” Bastian says.
COPE has issued guidelines to clarify when a paper should be corrected, when it should be retracted, and what details the notices should provide. But editors must still make case-by-case judgments, says Chris Graf, the group's co-chair and director of research integrity and publishing ethics at Wiley, the scientific publisher based in Hoboken, New Jersey.
A concerted effort to reduce the stigma associated with retractions could allow editors to make better decisions. “We need to be pretty clear that a retraction in the published literature is not the equivalent of, or a finding of, research misconduct,” Graf says. “It is to serve a [different] purpose, which is to correct the published record.”
One helpful reform, some commentators say, would be for journals to follow a standardized nomenclature that would give more details in retraction and correction notices.
The notices should specify the nature of a paper's problems and who was responsible—the authors or the journal itself.
Reserving the fraught term “retraction” for papers involving intentional misconduct and devising alternatives for other problems might also prompt more authors to step forward and flag their papers that contain errors, some experts posit.
The majority of retractions have involved scientific fraud (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) or other kinds of misconduct (such as fake peer review).
Percent of all retractions (%) ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 0 10 20 30 40 Fake peer review Flawed images Plagiarism or duplication of text *
Retracted papers, by publication year 2005 2000 2010 2015 1997All retractions: 62Fraud: 29 2007All retractions: 419Fraud: 252 2014All retractions: 946Fraud: 411 Fraud Other misconduct Possible misconduct Reliability Error Miscellaneous * Changing infractionsThe proportion of retractions involving plagiarism of text—stealing someone else’s or duplicating one’s own—has risen; one cause appears to be the introduction in 2004 of iThenticate, an inter-net-based plagiarism detection service. Fake peer reviews occur when authors give journals email addresses that they control, allowing them to review their own manuscripts. Flawed images include instances of intentional manipulation and of error. *Retraction numbers appear to decline after 2015, but are almost certainly incomplete; journals typically take several years to publish retractions.
(GRAPHIC) J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) RETRACTION WATCH; METHODOLOGY
Such discussions underscore how far the dialogue around retractions has advanced since those disturbing headlines from nearly a decade ago.
And although the Retraction Watch database has brought new data to the discussions, it also serves as a reminder of how much researchers still don't understand about the prevalence, causes, and impacts of retractions.
Data gaps mean “you have to take the entire literature [on retractions] with a grain of salt,” Bastian says. “Nobody knows what all the retracted articles are. The publishers don't make that easy.”
Bastian is incredulous that Oransky's and Marcus's “passion project” is, so far, the most comprehensive source of information about a key issue in scientific publishing. A database of retractions “is a really serious and necessary piece of infrastructure,” she says. But the lack of long-term funding for such efforts means that infrastructure is “fragile, and it shouldn't be.”
Ferric Fang, a clinical microbiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who has studied retractions, says he hopes people will use the new database “to look more closely at how science works, when it doesn't work right, and how it can work better.” And he believes transparent reporting of retractions can only help make science stronger. “We learn,” he says, “from our mistakes.”
science (journal) retractions – Retraction Watch
Sometimes scientific findings can be too hot to handle. Literally.
A team of researchers in India and Japan who reported breakthrough results in two papers about electromagnetics, including an article in Science, are retracting the articles because the exciting data resulted from experimental error. To be precise: unbeknownst to them, inadvertent heating of their samples had contaminated their data.
The first author of both articles is Chanchal Sow, of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur. The last author on both is Yoshiteru Maeno, a professor of physics at Kyoto University.
Here’s the notice:
Continue reading Too hot to handle: Authors retract Science paper on electromagnetics Frances Arnold
A Caltech researcher who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has retracted a 2019 paper after being unable to replicate the results.
Frances Arnold, who won half of the 2018 prize for her work on the evolution of enzymes, tweeted the news earlier today:
Continue reading Nobel winner retracts paper from Science Damage from the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake
The first author of a now-retracted paper in Science about the effects of the deadly 2016 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan has been suspended from his university position for one year.
Aiming Lin, of the Department of Geophysics at Kyoto University, was sanctioned by the institution for misconduct stemming from his misuse of data and plagiarism in the 2016 paper:
Continue reading Kyoto University suspends first author of retracted Kumamoto quake paper Damage from the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake
Science is retracting a 2017 paper about the deadly Kumamoto earthquake about a month after the university announced that the paper’s first author, Aiming Lin, had committed misconduct, including falsification of data and plagiarism.
Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg told us in late March that the journal had been trying to obtain more information in preparation for writing an expression of concern. Here’s today’s retraction notice:
Continue reading Science retracts report on deadly Kumamoto earthquake Steve Jackson
A University of Cambridge researcher — Steve Jackson — and a former researcher at the University of Bristol — Abderrahmane Kaidi — have accomplished a two-fer: Retracting a paper in Nature, and one in Science, on the same day.
In September of last year, the BBC reported that Kaidi was resigning “after admitting that he fabricated his research.” The Times reported that “Dr Kaidi’s admission came during a separate inquiry into complaints about his treatment of colleagues.” The university told the BBC at the time: Continue reading Authors have papers in Nature and Science retracted on the same day
Science is retracting a 2014 paper from the lab of a Nobel winner after replication attempts failed to conclusively support the original results.
In January, Bruce Beutler, an immunologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, emailed Science