We examined the text of 291 articles originating from the United States and published between 1992 and 2012 that were retracted for research misconduct (Fang et al., 2012), and recorded NIH grant numbers cited in footnotes or acknowledgments.
The mesmerizing room brings to mind a seaside vacation — all teals and pale blues, walls retracted for veranda-style dining, even if the breezes aren't Gulf or Pacific but Second Avenue.
When the trial finished, the white light turns on and the lever remained retracted for 20 seconds.
A search of online journals for "retracted" papers and reviewing the relatively new, important blog, Retraction Watch, reveals an alarming number of papers retracted for data manipulation and other malfeasances.
This manuscript [1] has been retracted for inappropriate and unattributed text duplication from a previous paper published in Drug Testing and Analysis [2].
At the end of each trial and prior to the start of the next one, the lever retracted for 10 s, and the house light flashed.
So far only one of Dr. Hauser's articles has been retracted, for unspecified reasons, and two have been amended.
They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics.
An additional term, 'rejected', allows to tag assertions that were retracted, for instance, following paper retraction, author misinterpretation or curator misinterpretation.
Impact factor exhibits a positive correlation with articles retracted for research misconduct or error (Fang and Casadevall, 2011; Fang et al., 2012).
