FW: [CHMINF-L] GENERAL: "ghosts" of retracted papers

[malena]

Cambié de dirección de correo ahora es yaniris at idict.cu cómo hacer que los
mensajes me lleguen ahora a mi nueva dirección
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Garfield" <eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM>
To: <SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] FW: [CHMINF-L] GENERAL: "ghosts" of retracted papers


> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Retractions are linked by the Web of Science to original reports. 23 March
2006
>
> Eugene Garfield,
> Ph.D.
> Thomson ISI,
> Marie McVeigh and Marion Muff
> Send rapid response to journal:
> Re: Retractions are linked by the Web of Science to original reports.
>
>
>
>
>
>  In response to: Harold C. Sox, and Drummond Rennie "Research Misconduct,
Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman
Case" Annals of Internal Medicine (18 April 2006 Volume 144 Issue 8)
>
> Dear Editor:
>
> The recent article about the importance of integrating retraction notices
with their original reports noted their treatment in PubMed, but failed to
take into account the procedures followed in the Science Citation Index
(SCI) the electronic version of which is included in the Web of Science.
>
> Ever since the SCI was launched in the sixties, published retractions have
been indexed by SCI. In each case a citation link was established between
the retraction, that is "correction," and the original source article. To
find retractions, like all other corrections, all one had to do was conduct
a cited reference search based on the author, journal and year of the
retracted paper. You would then see a list of all items that cited the
original work including the retractions, which like all other corrections
would be coded as such. However, since 1996 the treatment of retractions was
amplified by including the notation for the retraction together with the
bibliographic citation for the source item. If one does a search on a
subject or an author and finds a paper which has been retracted, the
retraction can be seen immediately adjacent to the source entry.
>
> Thus, the retraction entry for WS Hwang's paper on "Patient- specific
embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocyst (Retraction of vol
308, pg 1777, 2005) is followed by SCIENCE 311 (5759): 335-335 JAN 20 2006.
>
> When you conduct a cited reference search on the original paper at Hwang
HS, Science, 2005, you immediately see the statement that "this article was
retracted see Science 311, 335, Jan. 20, 2006"
>
> In previous generations authors often unwittingly cited retracted research
because they did not or could check citation indexes. Today there is no
excuse since access to PubMed and Web of Science is widely available.
>
> Eugene Garfield, Chairman Emeritus Marie McVeigh, Senior Manager, JCR &
Bibliographic Policy Marion Muff, Bibliographic Policy Manager Institute for
Scientific Information Thomson Scientific 3501 Market Street Philadelphia,
PA 19104
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CHEMICAL INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION LIST
[mailto:CHMINF-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Michaelson
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: CHMINF-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
> Subject: [CHMINF-L] GENERAL: "ghosts" of retracted papers
>
> Please excuse duplicate posting.
>
> The current issue of Science (7 April 2006) has two "News Focus" items
> regarding retracted papers: on pages 38-43 titled "Cleaning up the paper
> trail" by Jennifer Couzin and Katherine Unger, the subtitle reads "Once an
> investigation is completed and the publicity dies down, what happens to
> fraudulent or suspect papers? In many cases, not much."   One paragraph
says
> "An examination by Science of more than a dozen fraud or suspected fraud
> cases spanning 20 years reveals uneven and often chaotic efforts to
correct
> the scientific literature. Every case has its own peculiarities. Whether
> wayward authors confess to fraud; whether investigations are launched at
> all, and if they are, whether their scope is broad or narrow; whether
fraud
> findings are clearly communicated to journals--each of these helps
> determine how thorough a mop-up ensues."
>
> A side-bar "News Focus" item on pages 40-41, "Even retracted papers
endure"
> by the same two authors (but in reverse order) says in part:
> "Like ghosts riffling the pages of journals, retracted papers live on.
> Using Thomson Scientific's ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar,
Science
> found dozens of citations of retracted papers in fields from physics to
> cancer research to plant biology.
>
> "Seventeen of 19 retracted papers co-authored by German cancer researcher
> Friedhelm Herrmann have been cited since being retracted, in some cases
> nearly a decade after they were pulled. Together, two of those papers were
> cited roughly 60 times. Examination of one Nature paper by former Bell
Labs
> physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, published in 2000 and retracted in 2003,
> revealed that it's been noted in research papers 17 times since, although
> the drop-off after retraction was steep: Prior to being pulled, the paper
> was cited 153 times.
>
> "It's "quite embarrassing," says Richard Smith, former editor of the
> British Medical Journal, of references to retracted publications. "If
> people cite fraudulent articles, then either their research is going to be
> thrown off or something will be wasted," says Paul Friedman, a former dean
> at the University of California, San Diego, who oversaw an investigation
> into papers by radiologist Robert Slutsky in the mid-1980s.
>
> "In some cases, citations are "negative": The paper is cited precisely
> because it was retracted, and the retraction duly noted in the text. But
> those familiar with postretraction citation consider that rare..."
>
> See this issue of Science for the rest.
>
> Bob Michaelson
> Northwestern University Library
> Evanston, Illinois 60208
> USA
> rmichael at northwestern.edu
>
>
> CHMINF-L Archives (also to join or leave CHMINF-L, etc.)
> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/chminf-l.html
> Search the CHMINF-L archives at:
> https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?S1=chminf-l
> Sponsors of CHMINF-L:
> http://www.indiana.edu/~libchem/chminfsupport.htm
>
> CHMINF-L Archives (also to join or leave CHMINF-L, etc.)
> http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/chminf-l.html
> Search the CHMINF-L archives at:
> https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?S1=chminf-l
> Sponsors of CHMINF-L:
> http://www.indiana.edu/~libchem/chminfsupport.htm
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1475 (20060406) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>