1. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:
What Retractions Tell Us About
Scientific Transparency
2011 CrossRef Annual Member Meeting
November 15, 2011
Ivan Oransky, MD
Executive Editor, Reuters Health
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.com

3. Retractions on the Rise
-The Wall Street Journal

4. Retractions on the Rise

5. Retractions on the Rise
-Nature

6. Retractions on the Rise
-Neil Saunders

7. The Unofficial Record Holder

8. Which Journals Retract?
-Infection and Immunity 2011

9. Which Journals Retract?

10. Why Do Journals Retract?
-Journal of Medical Ethics 2010

11. Why Do Journals Retract?
• Error is more common than fraud
• 73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or
an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% for fraud
• Most common reason for retraction: a
scientific mistake (234 papers; 31.5%)
• Fabrication (including data plagiarism) more
common than text plagiarism
• Multiple reasons for retraction cited for 67
papers (9.0%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were
retracted for ambiguous reasons
-Journal of Medical Ethics 2010

12. Duplication

13. Publisher Error

14. Plagiarism

15. Legal Reasons

16. Lack of IRB Approval

17. Authorship Issues

18. Fraud: Image Manipulation

19. Fraud: Faked Data

20. Not Reproducible

21. What Happens to Retracted Papers?
-Assn of College & Research Libraries 2011

22. What Happens to Retracted Papers?
Budd et al, 1999:
• Retracted articles received more than 2,000 post-
retraction citations; less than 8% of citations
acknowledged the retraction
• Preliminary study of the present data shows that
continued citation remains a problem
• Of 391 citations analyzed, only 6% acknowledge
the retraction

23. This is Transparency?

24. This is Transparency?

25. This is Transparency?
• ‘important irregularities’ Well, if they’re
important irregularities, why don’t you tell us
what they are?
• ‘the authors ‘no longer stand by their results’
Are they standing somewhere else in the lab?
C’mon, tell us why they can’t stand by the results
anymore.
• ‘incorrect data were found to have been included
on the study Case Report Forms’ Paging Dr. Kafka.

26. This is Transparency?
• ‘figure withdrawn due to lack of supporting
data’ “Someone seems to have made this up.”
• ‘Retraction…is being done for legal reasons based
on the advice of counsel’ We’d comment on
this, but we’d probably get sued.
• ‘Numerous errors in the text and references… were
not discovered until after publication, although
neither novel ideas nor data were misappropriated’
As journalism error maven Craig Silverman would say
on RegretTheError.com, “Rest is fine.”

27. This is Transparency?

28. This is Transparency?
In this Letter we made errors in representative image
choice, including mislabelling of images or choosing an
image from the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice
of images was completely independent of the data analysis
and so none of the conclusions in our original Letter are
affected. We apologise for any confusion these errors may
have caused.

29. This is Transparency?
In this Letter we made errors in representative image
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
choice, including mislabelling of images or choosing an
image from the inappropriate In the process ofcases, choice
for four different genotypes. genotype. In all choosing
ofrepresentative pictures that reflect the results of our analysis
images was completely independent of the data analysis
and so none of the cropped images from original pictures
shown in Fig. 1b, conclusions in our original Letter are
were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
affected. We apologise for any confusion these errors may
provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a with new
have caused.
representative images for the following genotypes: WT and
Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture for WT
is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original images
for every genotype and additional examples are shown in
the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.

30. This is Transparency?
In this Letter depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
Figure 1c we made errors in representative image
choice, different genotypes. In of images orof figure assembly
Figureincluding mislabelling the process choosing an
five 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
cropped images from original pictures were inadvertently
image from the inappropriate In the process ofcases, choice
for four different genotypes. genotype. In all choosing
ofrepresentative pictures incorrectly. We provideof our analysis
images was completelythat reflect the results below a
mislabelled and used independent of the data analysis
and so none of the cropped images from original pictures In
corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–.
shown in Fig. 1b, conclusions in our original Letter are
affected. We apologise for any confusion these errors Brn11 cells
wereephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) may
the inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
provide below a corrected the lower layers of thenew and do
aberrantly accumulate in version of Fig. 1a with cortex
have caused.
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
representative images for the following genotypes: WT and
Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification additional examples
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and picture for WT
isare shown inin the two rightmostInformation of this
also shown the Supplementary panels. Original images
for every genotype and additional examples are shownof Brn11
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution in
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.

31. This is Transparency?
In this Letter depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
Figure 1c we made errors in representative image choice,
including1a depicts a Tbr1 staining process of figure assembly
five different genotypes. In the of the adult mouse cortex
Figure mislabelling of images or choosing an image from
cropped imagesgenotypes. the process of inadvertently
four 1d, the from original pictures were of images
the inappropriate second panel,all cases, choice choosing was
forIn Fig.differentgenotype. InIn labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’
completely independent of the ‘Reln1/2’. provideof our analysis
representative pictures incorrectly.analysisthe Methods of
mislabelled and used that reflect We results below a
should instead be labelled data the In and so none
thecorrected Fig. 1ccropped images fromaffected. pictures In
conclusions in with a new imageneurons’, ‘‘Cortical
original Letter for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–.
shown in Fig. 1b,our ‘Stimulation of are original We
summary section
apologise for fromconfusion these(Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells
wereephrinB3 compound mice and used incorrectly. We
the inadvertently mislabelled errors may have caused.
neurons any E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read
provide below a correctedE15.5 werelayers of thenew and do
aberrantly accumulate in the lower Fig. 1a with cortex
‘‘Cortical neurons from version of grown….’’.
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
representative images for the following genotypes: WT and
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Originalsupplementary onlinefor WT
(There were mistakes in the pictures and picture
Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification additional examples
isare shown too.) Supplementary Information of this
material, in the
also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original images
for every genotype and additional examples are shownof Brn11
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution in
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
the Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.

32. This is Transparency?

33. This is Transparency?

34. This is Transparency?

35. This is Transparency?
“The authors declare that key experiments presented
in the majority of these figures were recently
reproduced and that the results confirmed the
experimental data and the conclusions drawn from
them.”
EMBO Journal editor Bernd Pulverer:
“We did not formally investigate this case at the
journal and we have not seen this data, as it does not
affect the retraction.”

36. Model Organisms – and Retractions

37. Model Organisms – and Retractions

38. Model Retractions

39. Model Retractions

40. The Way Forward
• Use systems to detect image manipulation and
plagiarism
• Require authors to disclose prior retractions
and investigations
• Trust anonymous whistleblowers more
• Demand more of institutions
• Move more quickly to correct and retract
• Make retraction notices clearer - and -

41. The Way Forward
• Make them freely available

42. Acknowledgements/Contact Info
• Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health
• Adam Marcus, Retraction Watch
• http://retractionwatch.com
• ivan-oransky@erols.com
• Twitter: @ivanoransky