The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature: the Stephen E. Breuning case

Article Abstract:

The scientific community has become aware of a small but growing number of fraudulent research articles that are escaping detection and gaining publication. Scientific journals attempt to prevent publication of such studies by submitting manuscripts for peer review, which is an independent evaluation by an expert in the subject area. But it is often difficult to detect erroneous data before publication. Fraud may be revealed at a later time, and thus it becomes necessary to correct or retract the articles after they have been published. Journal editors may hesitate to print retractions because they could be sued by the discredited authors; in response to this dilemma, Congress may pass a law granting journals immunity when they publish corrections in good faith. One case of scientific fraud became well-known through media coverage; Dr. Stephen E. Breuning was convicted in 1988 of scientific fraud for fabricating data on treatments for hyperactivity. A study was conducted to determine the extent to which other scientists referred to Breuning's work in their own publications from 1980 to 1988. In this time period, his 20 publications were cited 200 times; of these 200 references, 80 were by Breuning himself or his coauthors. The manner in which other researchers referred to Breuning's articles was also analyzed. The majority of comments made by other authors either disagreed with his findings or mentioned them in a neutral context; few agreed with him. Thus the impact of his erroneous publications was smaller than would be assumed from the total number of citations. From 1986 on, while Breuning's fraudulent activities were being revealed, there was a dramatic decrease in the number of times other researchers cited his work. In this widely publicized case, scientists clearly shunned the questionable publications. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Case studies, Breuning, Stephen E.

---

The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature

Article Abstract:

Research fraud, when a scientist intentionally reports data that have been fabricated or altered, has been discovered on numerous occasions in recent years. This phenomenon may result from the pressure on academic researchers to publish frequently; it is known as the "publish or perish" mentality. While the scientific community has debated the causes of research fraud and the appropriate disciplinary measures, little attention has been paid to determining how the invalid data and conclusions are used by other scientists after their publication. In some cases, formal retractions are published by the journal that originally carried the article, but many readers will find the original article without also encountering the retraction. Researchers frequently conduct searches of the literature to gain a background understanding of what other scientists have found on a particular topic. They then conduct their own studies and cite the work of others in their list of references. An analysis of the literature was performed to determine how often authors had cited 82 fraudulent articles that had already been formally retracted. The 82 invalid articles were cited 733 times by other authors who presumably did not know of the retraction. A control group of articles that had not been retracted was compared; this showed that citation of retracted articles was only 35 percent less frequent than citation of valid articles. The continued citation of retracted publications may result in part from the inconsistent procedures used by journals for stating and indexing retractions. Unfortunately the methods used by the scientific community for removing fraudulent literature from use are grossly inadequate at this time; this issue will require further attention. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

---

Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication

Article Abstract:

Fraudulent research is occasionally published in medical and scientific journals. Cases of researchers who fabricated or altered data in order to complete a project or support a desired conclusion have occurred. If the information has already been published when the fraud is discovered, some believe that the journal should publish a formal retraction to inform readers that the results in question cannot be relied upon. A study was conducted to evaluate how 30 journals responded to notification of the findings of a fraud investigation; all had published articles by a professor whose work was found to be of questionable integrity. Not all of his 135 publications were found to be erroneous. The journals were notified that the specific articles they had published were either valid, questionable, or fraudulent, and were asked to publish this information. Overall, the journals were slow to act on the request and half required repeated reminders over a period of two years. Eventually, retractions were printed concerning 46 of the 60 nonvalid articles. Thirteen journals had published only valid articles by the professor in question, and of these journals five printed statements confirming this. Retractions were difficult to locate using electronic searching, which suggests that many readers would not be able to find them except by chance. Most journals had no formal policy for responding to notification that articles they had published were found to be fraudulent. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The impact of obesity on left ventricular mass and geometry: the Framingham Heart Study. Impact of national guidelines for cholesterol risk factor screening: the Framingham Offspring Study
• Abstracts: What do peer reviewers do? Underreporting research is scientific misconduct

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.