Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey

References

• GlasziouPAltmanDGBossuytPReducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical researchLancet2014383991326727624411647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SteenRGCasadevallAFangFCWhy has the number of scientific retractions increased?PLoS One201387e6839723861902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KaliASrirangarajSEmerging trends in retraction of publications in PubMed-indexed medical journalsInd J Pathol Microbiol2015582263263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SteenRGRetractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?J Med Ethics201137424925321186208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NathSBMarcusSCDrussBGRetractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?Med J Aust200618515216893357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FangFCCasadevallARetracted science and the retraction indexInfect Immun201179103855385921825063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KasendaBSchandelmaierSSunXSubgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publicationsBMJ2014349g453925030633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BuddJMSievertMSchultzTRPhenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publicationsJAMA199828032962979676689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FanelliDWhy growing retractions are (mostly) a good signPLoS Med20131012e100156324311988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FanelliDHow many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey dataPLoS One200945e573819478950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VieraAJGarrettJMUnderstanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statisticFam Med200537536036315883903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CokolMIossifovIRodriguez-EstebanRRzhetskyAHow many scientific papers should be retracted?EMBO Rep200785422423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FangFCSteenRGCasadevallAMisconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publicationsProc Natl Acad Sci U S A2012109170281703323027971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FangFCBennettJWCasadevallAMales are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconductMBio201341e640e612
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HahnSWilliamsonPRHuttonJLInvestigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committeeJ Eval Clin Pract20028335335912164983
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RegaladoAMultiauthor papers on the riseScience1995268520725267701334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KingChristopherMultiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward2013 Available from: http://archive.annual-report.thomsonreuters.com/2012/_files/pdf/MultiauthorPapers_ChrisKing.pdfAccessed September 2016
   Google Scholar
• NaboutJCParreiraMRTeresaFBPublish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single-to multi-authorship in biological papersScientometrics2015102357364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ByrnesJPMillerDCSchaferWDGender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysisPsychol Bull19991253367383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KaatzAVogelmanPNCarnesMAre men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe notMbio201342e156e113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NeugebauerKMKeeping tabs on the women: life scientists in EuropePLoS Biol20064e9716602822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HeadMGFitchettJRCookeMKWurieFBAtunRDifferences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010BMJ Open2013312e003362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CeciSJWilliamsWMUnderstanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in scienceProc Natl Acad Sci U S A201110883157316221300892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MartinsonBCCrainALAndersonMSDe VriesRInstitutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behaviorAcad Med200984111491149919858802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HirschLJConflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journalsMayo Clin Proc200984981182119720779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RahmanMFukuiTBiomedical publication—global profile and trendPublic Health2003117427428012966750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MhaskarRDjulbegovicBMagazinASoaresHPKumarAPublished methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocolsJ Clin Epidemiol201265660260922424985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SeifeCResearch misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literatureJAMA Intern Med2015175456757725664866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GrieneisenMLZhangMA comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literaturePLoS One2012710e4411823115617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ResnikDBWagerEKisslingGERetraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factorJ Med Libr Assoc2015103313626213505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WagerEWilliamsPWhy and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008J Med Ethics201137956757021486985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SteenRGRetractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?J Med Ethics201137211311721081306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MenezesRGRamPFatimaHSathianBHonesty is the best policy: a brief overview of retraction noticesNepal J Epidemiol20166460328804671
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FanelliDSet up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors: notices should make obvious whether a withdrawal of research is the result of misconduct or a genuine mistakeNature201653141541627008933
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BilbreyEO’DellNCreamerJA novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction noticesPublications201421426
   Google Scholar
• KleinertSCope’s retraction guidelinesLancet200937497051876187719962558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar