Retractions in medicine: the tip of the iceberg

In 1983, in the aftermath of what was then considered one of the most significant cases of scientific fraud ever, The New York Times reported that 82 papers by John Darsee, formerly of Harvard and Emory, had been retracted (available at https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/14/science/notorious-darsee-case-shakes-assumptions-about-science.html). That idea persisted: ∼30 years later, Nature said that >80 of Darsee’s papers had been withdrawn.1 In truth, just 17 papers by Darsee have ever been retracted (available at: http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?auth%3dDarsee%252c%2bJohn%2bR). That may seem surprising, given how high-profile the case was, but we have learned in the decades since that thousands—or even tens of thousands—of papers that should have been retracted have not been. Last year, there were >2300 retractions, up from just 38 in the year 2000 (Figure 1).2 Even accounting for the growth in papers published, the rate has increased dramatically. There are far more eyeballs on papers today, including the eyeballs of sleuths who find image manipulation, plagiarism, duplication suggestive of paper mills, statistical anomalies, and other issues (available at: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/17/meet-the-scientific-sleuths-ten-whove-had-an-impact-on-the-scientific-literature/). Take the example of John Carlisle, an anaesthetist whose work spotting data too good to be true, and randomization issues, has led to scores of retractions, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine (available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/13/619619302/errors-trigger-retraction-of-study-on-mediterranean-diets-heart-benefits).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.