Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?

A variety of ways to detect questionable research practices in small sample social science surveys have been discussed by a variety of authors. However, some of those approaches (e.g., GRIM test, SPRITE test) do not work well for results obtained from larger samples. Here several approaches for detecting anomalies in larger samples are presented and illustrated by an analysis of 78 journal articles in the area of criminology, 59 by Dr. Eric Stewart, published since 1998 with similar methods and/or authors, finding evidence that seven of the 59 articles have been retracted or corrected and of the remaining 52, nine (17.3%) featured at least one moderate anomaly while 38 (73.1%) featured at least one major or two moderate anomalies. Of all 59 articles, 28 (47.5%, p < .001, d = 0.94) had two or more major anomalies compared to none of the 19 control group articles. Furthermore, 22 (42.3%) of the 52 articles featured at least two major anomalies (p < .001, d = 0.89). It was also found that the larger the role of Dr. Stewart in article authorship, the greater the number of anomalies detected (p < .001, d = 1.01) while for his co-authors, there were few significant relationships between their roles and total anomalies. Our results demonstrate that extensive problematic results can remain undetected for decades despite several levels of peer review and other scientific controls; however, use of two types of control groups and the use of statistical methods for measuring and evaluating anomalies can improve detection.

The Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviews

Today, evidence-based nursing practice strives to improve health care, ensure adherence to treatment, improve health outcomes, and guarantee patient safety. The main scientific documents that nurses should consult, to obtain the best possible evidence, are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, this type of scientific document has a major issue if it uses retracted articles that could directly affect the consistency of the results shown in the reviews. The aim of this commentary is to present the current issue represented by the use of retracted articles in meta-analyses of systematic reviews and how researchers could detect them, through the use of different instruments, avoiding them, and providing a reliable SR or meta-analysis that could be useful for day-to-day clinical and research activities.

A comprehensive comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 from the scholarly literature

BACKGROUND

Science is a dynamic subject with ever-changing concepts and is said to be self-correcting. One of the major mechanisms of self-correction is retraction of flawed work.

AIM

To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrieved from MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in January 2014, and analysis of articles published in 2012 and 2013 was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 155 articles in 2012 and 182 in 2013 were retracted, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.

CONCLUSION

Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world. So, editors should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and make an effective strategy in order to reduce such misconduct, as it reflects very adversely not only in the scientific community but also in the general public.