Two new studies suggest that about half of the medical papers retracted over the past few decades were withdrawn due to misconduct rather than innocent error. This percentage is on the rise. However, although pharmaceutical companies are often portrayed in popular media as the source of all evil in biomedical publishing, only 4% of retractions due to misconduct had declared pharmaceutical sponsorship.
Academic Pressures and Conflicts of Interest
A new study indicates that there is immense pressure in academia to achieve promotions, funding, grants, and prestige, and we should not forget this amid the increasing scrutiny of industry-funded research. Liz Wager, director of Sideview Consulting in Princes Risborough, England, and chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), states that academic data is not scrutinized at all. Jenny Barbour, editor-in-chief of PLoS Medicine, notes that there is particular concern among journal editors regarding undeclared conflicts of interest in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Increase in Retractions Due to Misconduct
The independent study by Wager reached a nearly similar conclusion. It found 463 retractions in English-language research from 1978 to 2008 related to human health. The proportion of these retractions due to misconduct increased from about 40% in the late 1980s to 60% in the new millennium. This is perhaps due to editors becoming more aware of misconduct rather than a real increase in bad behavior. This increase aligns with the establishment of the Office of Scientific Integrity in the United States in 1989, along with new guidelines on ethical publishing standards from groups such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Focus on Academic Handling of Data
Many journals take extra care in reviewing industry-related research. In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) instituted a policy that research funded by pharmaceutical companies must undergo independent statistical review before publication.
It is unknown how much of the retracted research had undeclared ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Joseph Wesselar, a research analyst at JAMA in Chicago, found evidence of “ghostwriting” – that is, writing without acknowledgment – in 7.8% of the research he examined. The proportion of medical research that gets retracted is much lower than that (less than 0.1%) and could all carry undeclared support from the industry. However, Wager notes that more than half of the retracted research in her study relates to basic biomedical research, which is typically not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, rather than clinical trials.
Both Wager and Woley estimate that they earn about three-quarters of their income working for pharmaceutical companies. Others without such ties agree that more attention should be focused on academic handling of data. “It would be good if we could pay more attention to academia, but I don’t know how we will do that,” says Michael Calhoun, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Emergency Medicine in San Francisco. “These conflicts are more subtle and harder to eradicate. At least with a drug company, there is someone who has written a check.”
Information about the author
Nicola Jones
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Copyright and Permissions
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, N. Research retraction analysis highlights academia. Nat Med 15, 1101 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1009-1101
Download citation
Release Date: October 2009
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1009-1101
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get a shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is currently not available for this article.
Copy to clipboard
Provided by the SharedIt content-sharing initiative of Springer Nature
This article is cited by
Resolving authorship disputes through mediation and arbitration
Zen Faulkes
Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018)
Download citation
Announcement
Explore content
Research articles
Reviews and analyses
News and commentary
Podcast
Current issue
Collections
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to alerts
RSS feed
About the journal
Aims and scope
Journal information
Journal metrics
About capital letters
Editorial policies
Types of content
Nature Medicine Classic collection
Web feed
Labels
Contact us
Publish with us
Submission guidelines
For reviewers
Language editing services
Submit manuscript
Search
Search for articles by subject, keyword, or author
Show results from
All journals
This journal
Search
Advanced search
Quick links
Explore articles by subject
Find a job
Author guidelines
Editorial policies
Nature Medicine (Nat Med)
ISSN 1546-170X (online)
ISSN 1078-8956 (print)
sitemap nature.com
About Nature Portfolio
About us
Press releases
Press office
Contact us
Discover content
Journals A to Z
Articles by subject
Protocol exchange
Nature Index
Publication policies
Nature Portfolio policies
Open access
Author and researcher services
Reprints and permissions
Research data
Language editing
Scientific editing
Nature Masterclasses
Expert-led workshops
Research solutions
Libraries and institutions
Library librarian services and tools
Library librarian portal
Open research
Recommended for library
Advertising and partnerships
Advertising
Partnerships and services
Media kits
Featured content
Professional development
Nature jobs
Nature conferences
Regional sites
Nature Africa
Nature China
Nature India
Nature Italy
Nature Japan
Nature Korea
Nature Middle East
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Your privacy choices / Manage cookies
Legal notice
Accessibility statement
Terms and conditions
Your privacy rights in the United States
© 2024 Springer Nature Limited
Close banner
Subscribe to the Nature Briefing – what matters in science, delivered to your inbox daily for free.
Email address
Subscribe
I agree to the processing of my information in accordance with Nature’s privacy policy and Springer Nature Limited.
Close banner
Get the top science stories of the day, delivered to your inbox for free.
Subscribe to Nature Briefing
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1009-1101
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{
width: calc(12% – 20px);
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item img{
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
object-fit: cover;
aspect-ratio: 1 / 1;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item.lwrp-empty-list-item{
background: initial !important;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
}@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {
.lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-title{
}.lwrp .lwrp-description{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container ul.lwrp-list{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
“`html
padding-top: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-double,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{
justify-content: initial;
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
};
}
Leave a Reply