Ética en la publicación científica biomédica. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España

  1. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca 1
  2. José Antonio Salvador-Oliván 1
  3. Rosario Arquero-Avilés 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Zaragoza (Departamento de Ciencias de la Documentación e Historia de la Ciencia)
  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Facultad de Ciencias de la Documentación
Aldizkaria:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Argitalpen urtea: 2019

Zenbakien izenburua: Información y comunicación biomédica

Alea: 28

Zenbakia: 2

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2019.MAR.22 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: El profesional de la información

Laburpena

The main causes of retraction of biomedical articles with affiliated authors in Spain, as well as factors to interpret this phenomenon are identified. A total of 132 retractations have been analyzed, being the first cause of retraction the fabrication/falsification of data. Duplicated or reused images, errors admitted and not malicious in the data or procedures, duplicate or fragmented articles, and plagiarism are also frequent retraction causes. Retractions are not frequent, accounting for only 0.11% of the production of Spanish authors. But beyond that, retractions are an important correction and alert mechanism for scientific publications that ensures the reliability of the medical literature, its quality and progress.

€ Ikusi finantzaketa

Finantzaketari buruzko informazioa

Finantzatzaile

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Amos, Kathleen A. (2014). “The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations”. Journal of the Medical Library Association, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 87-91. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005
  • Asende, Manuel (2016). “Despedida una científica premiada con dos millones de euros de la UE”. El país, 7 marzo. https://elpais.com/elpais/2016/03/04/ciencia/1457090679_248492.html
  • Asende, Manuel (2017a). “El hombre que destapó el mayor escándalo de la ciencia española”. El país, 8 marzo. https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/03/07/ciencia/1488903640_769865.html
  • Asende, Manuel (2017b). “La protagonista del mayor escándalo de la ciencia española pierde los 1,86 millones de euros de la UE”. El país, 7 julio. https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/07/13/ciencia/1499949030_751576.html
  • Baiget, Tomàs (2010). “Ética en revistas científicas”. Ibersid, v. 4, pp. 59-65. https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/article/view/3873
  • Bhutta, Zulfiqar; Crane, Julian (2014). “Should research fraud be a crime?”. BMJ, g4532. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4532
  • Bik, Elizabeth M.; Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C. (2016). “The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications”. mBio, v. 7, n. 3, pp. 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16
  • Budd, John M.; Sievert, Mary-Ellen; Schultz, Tom R. (1998). “Phenomena of retractation. Reasons for retractation and citations to the publications”. JAMA, v. 280, n. 3, pp. 296-297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
  • Bülow, William; Helgesson, Gert (2018). “Criminalization of scientific misconduct”. Medicine, health care and philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7
  • Campos-Varela, Isabel; Ruano-Raviña, Alberto (2018). “Misconduct as the main cause for retractation. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors”. Gaceta sanitaria, Junio 5, pp. ii (en prensa). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
  • Colomé-Hidalgo, Manuel E.; Canario-Guzmán, Julio A. (2015). “Consideraciones éticas sobre mala conducta científica en investigación en salud en la República Dominicana, 2015”. Eidon, n. 44, pp. 56-66. https://doi.org/10.13184/eidon.44.2015.56-66
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (2009). Guidelines for retracting articles. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
  • De-la-Fuente, Ricardo; Bernard, Antonio; García-Castro, Javier; Martín, María C.; Cigudosa, Juan C. (2010). “Retraction: Spontaneous human adult stem cell transformation”. Cancer research, v. 70, n. 16, pp. 6682. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2451
  • Decullier, Evelyne; Maisonneuve, Hervé (2018). “Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices”. BMC research notes, v. 11, n. 1, p. 490. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3576-2
  • Decullier, Evelyne; Samson, Géraldine; Huot, Laure (2012). “Rétractions pour erreur et pour fraude”. La press médicale, v. 41, n. 9, pp. 847-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2012.05.006
  • Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Roldán-López, Álvaro (2007). “El fraude en la ciencia: reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang”. El profesional de la información, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 143-150. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2007.mar.07
  • Dooley, James J.; Kerch, Helen (2000). “Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists”. Science and engineering ethics, v. 6, n. 1, pp. 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0029-8
  • Dubois, James M.; Anderson, Emily E.; Chibnall, John; Carrol, Kelly; Gibb, Tyler; Ogbuka, Chiji; Rubbelke, Timothy (2013). “Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing”. Accountability in research, v. 20, n. 5-6, pp. 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248
  • Fanelli, Daniele (2013). “Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign”. PLoS medicine, v. 10, n. 12, e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
  • Fanelli, Daniele (2014). “Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity”. Nature, v. 509, n. 7498, p. 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/509033a
  • Fanelli, Daniele; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Goodman, Steven (2018). “Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections”. European journal of clinical investigation, v. 48, n. 4, e12898. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12898
  • Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo (2011). “Retracted science and the retraction index”. Infection and immunity, v. 79, n. 10, pp. 3855-3859. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11
  • Fang, Ferric C.; Steen, R. Grant; Casadevall, Arturo (2012). “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 109, n. 42, pp. 1702817033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  • Gammon, Elizabeth; Franzini, Luisa (2013). “Research misconduct oversight: Defining case costs”. Journal of health care finance, v. 40, n. 2, pp. 75-99. https://mdsoar.org/handle/11603/4069#?
  • Goodstein, David (2002). “Scientific misconduct”. Academe, v. 88, n. 1, pp. 28-31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40252116
  • Gutiérrez, Sneider-Alexander; Barbosa, Hamilton-Julián; Cuero, Manuel-Salvador; Duarte, Edison-Jahir; Gaitán, Francy-Edilma; Lozano, Jaime-Leonardo; Meneses, Arlid; Olaya, Jenny-Lorena; Pacheco, Gustavo-Fabián; Rodríguez, Cristian-Camilo; Clavijo, Jairo-Alfonso; Vallejo, Gustavo-Adolfo (2016). “La retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para conservar la integridad y la confianza en la ciencia: un análisis de retractaciones de publicaciones biomédicas de libre acceso en PubMed, 1959-2015”. Revista de la Académica Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, v. 40, n. 157, pp. 568-579. https://www.raccefyn.co/index.php/raccefyn/article/view/399
  • Gutiérrez-San-Miguel, Begoña; Tur-Viñes, Victoria; Fonseca-Mora, María-Carmen (2016). “Principios éticos de los editores en las revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación, Educación y Psicología”. Ibersid, v. 10, n. 2, pp. 53-60. https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/article/view/4310
  • Hermerén, Göran (2008). “Integridad y mala conducta en el ámbito investigador”. Sebbm, n. 156, pp. 5-10. http://www.sebbm.es/revista/repositorio/pdf/156/d01156.pdf
  • Icmje (2017). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated December 2017. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
  • Langdon-Neuner, Elise (2008). “Medical ghost-writing”. Mens sana, v. 6, n. 1, pp. 257-273. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.33006
  • Marcus, Adam (2018). “Dental journal pulls a dozen papers for recycled images and unreliable data”. Retraction watch, May 31st. http://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/31/dental-journal-pulls-a-dozen-papers-for-recycled-images-and-unreliable-data
  • Méndez, Rafael (2012). “El CSIC pone en duda la veracidad de 24 publicaciones científicas”. El país, 11 junio. https://elpais.com/sociedad/2012/06/11/actualidad/1339441618_930007.html
  • Pickett, Justin T.; Roche, Sean-Patrick (2018). “Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science”. Science and engineering ethics, v. 24, n. 1, pp. 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
  • Resnik, David B.; Dinse, Gregg E. (2013). “Scientific retractations and corrections related to misconduct findings”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 39, n. 1, pp. 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100766
  • Resnik, David B.; Neal, Talicia; Raymond, Austin; Kissling, Grace E. (2015). “Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions”. Accountability in research, v. 22, n. 1, pp. 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943
  • Resnik, David B.; Stewart, C. Neal (2012). “Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement”. Accountability in research, v. 19, n. 1, pp. 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.650948
  • Retraction watch (2018). “The 10 most highly cited retracted papers”. Retraction watch. http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers
  • Rohwer, Anke; Young, Taryn; Wager, Elizabeth; Garner, Paul (2017). “Autorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: Views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers”. BMJ open, v. 7, n. 11, e018467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467
  • Rubio, Daniel; García-Castro, Javier; Martín, María C.; De-la-Fuente, Ricardo; Cigudosa, Juan C.; Lloyd, Alison C.; Bernad, Antonio (2005). “Spontaneous human adult stem cell transformation”. Cancer research, v. 65, n. 8, pp. 3035-3039. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4194
  • Smart, Pippa (2017). “Redundant publication and salami slicing: the significance of splitting data”. Developmental medicine & child neurology, v. 59, n. 8, pp. 775. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13485
  • Steen, R. Grant (2011). “Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing?”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 37, n. 4, pp. 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923
  • Stern, Andrew M.; Casadevall, Arturo; Steen, R. Grant; Fang, Ferric C. (2014). “Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications”. eLife, v. 3, e02956. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956
  • Van-Noorden, Richard (2011) “Science publishing: The trouble with retractions”. Nature, v. 478, n. 7367, pp. 26-28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
  • Wager, Elizabeth (2012). “Why has the Committee on Publication Ethics developed guidelines for cooperation between journals and research institutions?”. Saudi journal of anaesthesia, v. 6, n. 2, pp. 102-103. https://doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.97018
  • Wager, Elizabeth; Barbour, Virginia; Yentis, Steven; Kleinert, Sabine (2010). “Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)”. Resuscitation, v. 81, n. 1, pp. 6-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.001
  • Wager, Elizabeth; Williams, Peter (2011). “Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of medicine retractions 1988-2008”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 37, n. 9, pp. 567-570. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964
Datuen iturria: Dialnet