[What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology]

Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements

In 2009, Scott S. Reuben was convicted of fabricating data, which lead to 25 of his publications being retracted. Although it is clear that the perpetuation of retracted articles negatively effects the appraisal of evidence, the extent to which retracted literature is cited had not previously been investigated. In this study, to better understand the perpetuation of discredited research, we examine the number of citations of Reuben's articles within 5 years of their retraction. Citations of Reuben's retracted articles were assessed using the Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters, NY). All citing articles were screened to discriminate between articles in which Reuben's work was quoted as retracted, and articles in which his data was wrongly cited without any note of the retraction status. Twenty of Reuben's publications had been cited 274 times between 2009 and 1024. In 2014, 45 % of the retracted articles had been cited at least once. In only 25.8 % of citing articles was it clearly stated that Reuben's work had been retracted. Annual citations decreased from 108 in 2009 to 18 in 2014; however, the percentage of publications correctly indicating the retraction status also declined. The percentage of citations in top-25 %-journals, as well as the percentage of citations in journals from Reuben's research area, declined sharply after 2009. Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben's articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations.

Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

BACKGROUND

Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines.

METHODS

All retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type "retraction of publication". The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article.

RESULTS

Overall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction.

CONCLUSION

A standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.

Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs affect bone healing? A critical analysis

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) play an essential part in our approach to control pain in the posttraumatic setting. Over the last decades, several studies suggested that NSAIDs interfere with bone healing while others contradict these findings. Although their analgesic potency is well proven, clinicians remain puzzled over the potential safety issues. We have systematically reviewed the available literature, analyzing and presenting the available in vitro animal and clinical studies on this field. Our comprehensive review reveals the great diversity of the presented data in all groups of studies. Animal and in vitro studies present so conflicting data that even studies with identical parameters have opposing results. Basic science research defining the exact mechanism with which NSAIDs could interfere with bone cells and also the conduction of well-randomized prospective clinical trials are warranted. In the absence of robust clinical or scientific evidence, clinicians should treat NSAIDs as a risk factor for bone healing impairment, and their administration should be avoided in high-risk patients.