ITR also impacts on interview data quality when data are retracted by interviewees[ 24].
A meta-analysis of survey data indicates that approximately 2% of scientists admit to data falsification or manipulation on at least one occasion (Fanelli, 2009), whereas less than 0.02% of published data are retracted due to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (Claxton, 2005; Fang et al., 2012).
But in 2001, after failing to reproduce the results and finding that some of the data were suspect, the result was retracted.
We selected the 290 articles from this database that were retracted due to misconduct originating from the United States between 1992 and 2012, as well as one additional article originating from France (Le Page et al., 2000) that was retracted due to data falsification by a co-author (Steven Leadon) working in the United States.
The data indicated stretching and sequential bond-breaking as the cell probe was retracted from all of the surfaces.
However, in 2002 this result was retracted after it was discovered that some of the data had been falsified.
The study which claimed to prove the weight-loss abilities of the product was retracted after it emerged it was based on fraudulent data.
That paper was retracted due to findings of fraud: the lead author had falsified and misrepresented the data on the children.
But the study was retracted, and the physician-researcher who led it, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was shown to have falsified the data and was stripped of his medical license. .
But the study was retracted, and the physician-researcher who led it, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was shown to have falsified the data and was stripped of his medical license.
