Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Expert Recommended Biomedical Journal Articles: Their Retractions Or Corrections, And Post-Retraction Citing, Peiling Wang, Jing Su

School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works

Faculty Opinions has provided recommendations of important biomedical publications by domain experts (FMs) since 2001. The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) identify the characteristics of the expert-recommended articles that were subsequently retracted; 2) investigate what happened after retraction. We examined a set of 232 recommended, later retracted or corrected articles. These articles were classified as New Finding (43%), Interesting Hypothesis (16%), etc. More than 71% of the articles acknowledged funding support; the NIH (US) was a top funder (64%). The top reasons for retractions were Errors of various types (28%); Falsification/fabrication of data, image, or results (20%); Unreliable …