BBC Radio 4: Material World: Retractions

[Firestormm]

Thought this episode might be of interest to some. Not specifically about ME I am afraid (or not) but we've talked lots about retractions generally of course and in relation to XMRV etc. etc.

This week Material World looks into what happens when published research is wrong, or worse fraudulent? When a published peer reviewed article is subsequently found to have something wrong with it, journals may send out a "retraction notice". But do these notices tell the whole story? Research out this week suggests that up to two thirds of retracted papers are due to scientific misconduct, rather than simple error.

Available on iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n1rpr

It refers I believe to research published this week that reveals more about the nature of recent retractions, why the number has increased and what the reasons are behind them.

Anyway, figured it might interest others too

Not sure it's available to our US buddies unfortunately - sorry chaps.

Oh yeah forgot to mention, Ivan Oransky is one of the contributors. He of Retraction Watch of whom some will be familiar.

Will try and get a hold of the new paper they are talking about tomorrow. Very interesting wee programme methinks.

 

[Firestormm]

Retraction Watch:

Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously thought, thanks to unhelpful retraction notices that cause us to beat our heads against the wall here at Retraction Watch.

The study of 2,047 retractions in biomedical and life-science research articles in PubMed from 1973 until May 3, 2012 brings together three retraction researchers whose names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers: Ferric Fang, Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. Fang and Casadevall have published together, including on their Retraction Index, but this is the first paper by the trio.

The paper is— as we’ve come to expect from these three — an extremely careful analysis, the most comprehensive we’ve seen to date. Other studies have offered clues to these trends, but by looking at as many years of data as they did, and by including secondary sources on the reasons for retraction, this becomes a very important contribution to our understanding of what drives retraction....

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.co...opaque-notices-distort-the-scientific-record/

Methinks this is definitely the paper they are referring to in part of the discussion above Always interesting to hear a person's voice when you've only seen a photo before. Can't say I would put Ivan's voice to his piccie lol