We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.
A research paper retraction by an academic journal sends a clear message that the validity of the paper has been brought into question. The fellow researchers who may be citing that paper, or even worse, moving forward with research based on the retracted study and thus may have to re-visit their research plan, which could lead to extensive loss of time and effort. Since the paper in question.
Any retraction represents a tremendous waste of scientific resources that are often supported with public funding, and the retraction of published work can undermine the faith of the public in science and their willingness to provide continued support. The corrosive impact of retracted science is disproportionate to the relatively small number of retracted articles. The scientific process is.The Journal of Vibroengineering recently retracted three papers published in 2016 due to a seemingly strange reason - the papers were suddenly being cited too much. As it turns out, the editor of the journal had suspicions that one of the co-authors of these papers, applied mechanician Magd Abdel Wahab from Ghent University in Belgium, may have solicited the citations. Wahab chaired an.I am sad because I recently got an email from the editor of a journal in which my paper is published, requesting me to retract the paper because they found some errors in my data and statistical analysis. I am worried about my reputation if I have a retracted paper. I may not get a grant for my next study. Please advise me.
To conduct research is a complex process, but it is even more difficult to write a research paper. Since writing this type of academic work requires good academic writing skills, as well as knowledge of “how to properly write a research paper”. On the Internet, many articles in which writers write about: “how to write a research paper”, “how quickly to write a research paper”, etc.
The Retraction Watch Database Please see this user guide before you get started.
In light of two critical reviews received by the journal after publication (available on request), and additional commissioned independent assessments, the Journal has retracted the following paper from publication: May, T., Bennett, T. and Holloway, K. (2018) The impact of medically supervised injection centres on drug-related harms: A meta-analysis, 59: 98-107.
Background. Several months ago, Dr. Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UCSF, and his associates published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association in which they conclude that vaping increased the likelihood of a heart attack. Coming on the heels of the vaping deaths, now believed to be due to illegal.
Many have also argued that the failings in the paper (use of materials other than those specified) could not have been caught by peer review; and that the scientific process did work successfully in the end, in that the article was ultimately retracted. The paper was published in the 27 September 2002 issue of Science (volume 297, pages 2260-3).
A November 2016 paper published in Chemical Engineering Journal and retracted in March 2017 was accepted as cover photo of the journal, according to Dr. Sharma.
In 1998 Andrew Wakefield and 11 other co-authors published a study with the unremarkable title: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Such a title would hardly grab a science journalist's attention, but the small study sparked widespread hysteria about a possible connection between the mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine and.
Unfortunately, however, retracted science has a strange way of sticking around the literature with the tenacity of a guest that never leaves. The phenomenon is both puzzling and problematic. Puzzling, because it’s not entirely clear why researchers continue to cite retracted studies in support of new work, even years after the research has been tagged as unreliable. Problematic, because the.
This paper explores the nature and impact of research misconduct in psychology by analyzing 160 articles that were retracted from prominent scholarly journals between 1998 and 2017. We compare findings with recent studies of retracted papers in economics, and business and management, to profile practices that are likely to be problematic in cognate social science disciplines. In psychology.
Science is said to be self-correcting,. It is important to note that a single paper may be retracted for multiple reasons. A total 1,993 papers were retracted for a single infraction, 48 papers were retracted for two infractions, and 6 papers were retracted for three infractions. No papers were retracted for more than three infractions. Several mechanisms may be contributing to the increase.
Between Wakefield’s fraud and the astonishingly poor science in the article, it became one of the first of retracted anti-vaccine papers that hit our consciousness about vaccines. Sadly, because of this paper, many parents began to believe that vaccines “caused” autism. And vaccination rates have dropped to the point where we have a.