Corrections

BIOPHYSICS AND COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Correction for “Surface residues dynamically organize water 15 ps−1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to propa-
bridges to enhance electron transfer between proteins,” by gate the equations of motion within the Langevin approach.

Aurélien de la Lande, Nathan S. Babcock, Jan Rezá c, Barry C. Periodic boundary conditions were applied to simulate a con-
Sanders, and Dennis R. Salahub, which appeared in issue 26, tinuous medium.” should instead appear as “A friction coef-
June 29, 2010, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (107:11799–11804; first ficient of 10 ps−1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to
published June 14, 2010; 10.1073/pnas.0914457107).
propagate the equations of motion within the Langevin ap-
The authors note that Table 1 appeared incorrectly. The cor-
rected table appears below. proach. No boundary conditions were imposed; the system freely
Additionally, the authors note that on page 11803, right evolved in vacuum.”
column, first paragraph, lines 7–10, “A friction coefficient of These errors do not affect the conclusions of the article.

Table 1. Expectation values for 〈etot〉 and the ratios remut = 〈e tot 〉 /〈e tot
2 mut 2 wt
ET / k ET obtained from packing density and
〉 and r kmut = k mut wt

pathway analyses*
Wild type M51L M51K M51A M51C

rkmut (Experiment) 1.0 0.68 0.49 0.13 —
〈«tot〉 × 103 (Pathway analysis) 0.90 ± 0.03 0.47 ± 0.03 0.61 ± 0.02 0.65 ± 0.02 0.73 ± 0.02
r«mut (Pathway analysis) 1.0 0.36 ± 0.04 0.52 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.04 0.76 ± 0.05
〈«tot〉 × 103 (Packing density) 0.70 ± 0.03 0.42 ± 0.04 0.51 ± 0.03 0.62 ± 0.05 1.03 ± 0.05
r«mut (Packing density) 1.0 0.56 ± 0.09 0.76 ± 0.07 0.89 ± 0.15 2.29 ± 0.26
Phb 0.53 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.16
τ (ns−1) 0.23 0.45 1.20 0.50 2.25

*The uncertainties account for the sampling errors of the computational protocol (see SI Text). Experimental rates kET were obtained from k3 (at 30 °C) in
table 3 of ref. 15 (M51C was not reported). Phb is the unit-normalized likelihood that a water molecule is simultaneously hydrogen bonded to both the
MADH Ser β 56 O and amicyanin His 95 HE2 atoms during our simulations. The turnover τ of the bridging water molecule is defined as the number of
different water molecules that participate in pathway A1 divided by the length of the simulation in nanoseconds.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220833110

1136–1137 | PNAS | January 15, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 3 www.pnas.org

1220649110 PNAS | January 15. 3 | 1137 .1073/pnas.org/cgi/doi/10. Steen. 10. Grant 1212247109). 2012 CORRECTIONS www. The October 16.” by Ferric C. first published October 1.pnas.1073/pnas. retracted scientific publications. 2010 758 Fraud Reyes Blood 2001 2009 740 Error Fukuhara Science 2005 2007 686 Error Nakao Lancet 2003 2009 626 Fraud Chang Science 2001 2006 512 Error Kugler Nature Medicine 2000 2003 494 Fraud Rubio Cancer Research 2005 2010 457 Error Gowen Science 1998 2003 395 Fraud Makarova Nature 2001 2006 375 Error Hwang Science 2004 2006 368 Fraud Potti The New England Journal of Medicine 2006 2011 361 Fraud Brugger The New England Journal of Medicine 1995 2001 336 Fraud Van Parijs Immunity 1999 2009 330 Fraud Potti Nature Medicine 2006 2011 328 Fraud Schön Science 2000 2002 297 Fraud Chiu Nature 2005 2010 281 Error Cooper Science 1997 2005 264 Fraud Le Page Cell 2000 2005 262 Error Kawasaki Nature 2004 2006 243 Fraud Hwang Science 2005 2006 234 Fraud *As of June 22. 2012. Fang. The authors note that Table 3 appeared incorrectly. of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (109:17028– corrected table appears below. which appeared in issue 42. R. 2013 | vol. Table 3. Most Cited Retracted Articles First author Journal Year published Year retracted Times cited* Reason for retraction Wakefield Lancet 1998 2004. and Arturo Casadevall.MEDICAL SCIENCES Correction for “Misconduct accounts for the majority of 17033. 2012. 110 | no.

the rising frequency traction was confirmed (2. NC 27517.2 Departments of aLaboratory Medicine and bMicrobiology.C. including correct” (11). E-mail: arturo.C.G.. 1 F. Thus.pnas. an investigation of this article conducted by Harvard 2 To whom correspondence should be addressed. The most common reason for re- traction was fraud or suspected fraud (43. collectively accounted for more cases of plagiarism than the retraction is a relatively recent development in the biomedical United States. we have shown that only 21.” giving the impression of error (9). although retractable offenses are not neces. search Communications reported that “results were derived from The authors declare no conflict of interest. in the number of research publications: retractions for fraud or suspected fraud. un- suspected fraud as a percentage of total articles have increased known. and increasing a comprehensive analysis of all retracted articles indexed by retractions because of plagiarism and duplicate publication are PubMed to ascertain the validity of the earlier findings. Princeton University. authorship dispute)... However. three-quarters were retracted because of misconduct or suspected misconduct.3% of retractions were attributable to error.8%).4%). The relationship between journal impact sarily new.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct.g. The United States. A discernible rise in re- tractions because of fraud or error was first evident in the 1990s. University of Washington School of Medicine. However. Use of these additional sources of information those because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (Fig. in addition to the retraction announcements in relation with retractions because of fraud or error but not with scientific journals. Retracted a recent phenomenon. A comprehensive search of the PubMed database in Germany. 42 www.C.yu. journal error. duplicate publication (14.1212247109/-/DCSupplemental. conduct by knowingly and intentionally falsely reporting . Incomplete. and China accounted for three-quarters of May 2012 identified 2. In another example. A subsequent report from the Office of Research fraud or suspected fraud (43. that the lack of FOXO1a expression reported in figure 1 is not 67. with additional bibliometric analysis | biomedical publishing | ethics | research misconduct articles retracted because of duplicate publication (14. and dDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology. ilar to that of plagiarism. irrespective of the cause. and duplicate publication exhibited a pattern sim- scientific literature. 1A). R. R. Fanga. 2). for articles in which the T he number and frequency of retracted publications are im- portant indicators of the health of the scientific enterprise.8%). WA 98195.S. 8). 2012 | vol.. and A.Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications Ferric C. 2). The percentage of immunoblot to show the desired result” (12). and Integrity states that the first author committed “research mis- plagiarism (9. Grant Steenc. a retraction notice 1073/pnas. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic retracted because of some form of misconduct. NJ.pnas. . The retraction of flawed Temporal Trends. with the earliest retractions because of fraud or suspected fraud.F. by selecting a specific FOXO1a role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. Princeton. Journal-impact factor showed a highly significant cor- resources (7. . A list of 158 articles for which the cause of retraction was reclassified because of consul- tation of secondary sources is provided in Table S1. execution and data analysis. R. an- a retraction announcement in Biochemical and Biophysical Re.047 retracted articles. A more modest increase retraction correlate with journal-impact factor (6).S. lected retracted articles have suggested that error is more com- with a subsequent dramatic rise in retractions attributable to mon than fraud as a cause of retraction (3–5) and that rates of fraud occurring during the last decade. designed research. 2012) A detailed review of all 2. alyzed data. For example. because retracted articles represent unequivocal evidence of reason for retraction is known. 2012 (received for review July 18.1073/pnas. error. 2012 revealed Biology stated that “In follow-up experiments . In contrast to earlier scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold studies.F.1212247109 .1. with only 21. NY 10461 Edited by Thomas Shenk.b. University and reported to the Office of Research Integrity in. Japan. Bronx. seen only since 2005. Chapel Hill.9%) retractions in Moreover. 13). retracted because of error. performed research.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. nearly 10-fold since 1975 (Fig. the 1940s.casadevall@einstein. Results Geographic Origin and Impact Factor.C. Hence. Author contributions: F. the mean impact factors of journals retracting articles an earlier study (4) from error to fraud. we found that the majority of retracted articles were since 1975. In contrast. and only one- project failure. The recent increase articles were classified according to whether the cause of re- in retractions for fraud cannot be attributed solely to an increase traction was documented fraud (data falsification or fabrication). edu.1. cMediCC! Medical Communications Consultants. 3 A–C). but was not uniform among the of retractions has recently elicited concern (1. Miscellaneous reasons or unknown causes accounted for the remainder. 109 | no. plagiarism. Albert Einstein College of Medicine. and approved September 6. To understand the reasons for retraction.4%).1.3% patterns that may reveal underlying causes. duplicate publication.047 biomedical and life-science research published by the authors of a manuscript in the Journal of Cell articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3. and A. and wrote the paper. 17028–17033 | PNAS | October 16. contributed equally to this work. Studies of se. uninformative or misleading retrac. .. resulted in the reclassification of 118 of 742 (15. . . dicated that “many instances of data fabrication and falsifica. Seattle. and geographic origin was found to vary articles relating primarily to biomedical research published since according to the cause for retraction (Fig. various causes of retraction (Fig. experiments that were found to have flaws in methodological This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.G. worthy of rigorous and systematic study. and Arturo Casadevalld. tion were found” (10).2%) or plagiarism (9. that tion announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the FOXO1a was not expressed . we consulted factor and retraction rate was also found to vary with the cause of reports from the Office of Research Integrity and other published retraction. PubMed references more than 25 million ored in 56 countries. 1B). . China and India retracted article published in 1973 and retracted in 1977. or other reasons (e. retractions are quarter was retracted for error. We undertook in retractions because of error was observed. A marked recent rise in the frequency of re- publications corrects the scientific literature and also provides insights into the scientific process. Retracted articles were auth- Causes of Retraction.org/cgi/doi/10. Hence.2%). This article contains supporting information online at www.

encompassing all retractions in the biomedical research litera- tinct subsets of journals. plagiarism (B). and nearly half of retractions are for cation. S2). 42 | 17029 . plagiarism. Although we did not examine this question comprehensively. we found considerable variation among the most frequently cited retracted articles (Table 3). Journal-impact factor did not correlate with time-to-retraction for manuscripts retracted because of error. Some retracted articles exhibited a rapid and sus- tained decline in citations following retraction. 109 | no. Discussion In addition to confirming a recent rise in the incidence of re- tractions. but did exhibit a modest correlation for manuscripts retracted because of fraud in high-impact journals. 2012 | vol. The time interval between publication and retraction varied according to the cause of retraction. 4B). PNAS | October 16. with arti- cles retracted because of fraud taking substantially longer to retract (Table 2). but others have Fig. 3D) ture. (A) Number of retracted articles for specific causes by year of re. (14) was fol- lowed in rapid succession by the retraction of 30 additional articles originating from the laboratory of Naoki Mori (Fig. but others have documented an immediate effect of retraction on citation frequency (17). we find that most retracted articles nals retracting articles because of plagiarism or duplicate publi. alternative sources of information. which tended to exhibit a shorter time-to-retraction (Fig. S1). or duplicate publication (C). 2. result from misconduct. the re- traction of a 2010 Blood article by Sawada et al. continued to be cited (Fig. 1. Fang et al. this study provides a number of additional insights. This finding is attributable to the discovery of multiple fraudulent articles during the course of investigation of a single instance of fraud. because of fraud or error differed significantly from that of jour. Accordingly. In addition to a larger sample size for plagiarism or duplicate publication were encountered in dis. traction. Thirty-eight research groups with greater or equal to five retractions accounted for 43. with differences in impact factor (Fig. (B) Percentage of published articles retracted for fraud or suspected fraud by year of publication. S3). Time-to-Retraction. 16). retractions for fraud or error and retractions fraud or suspected fraud. 4A). Nearly all retracted articles by authors with 10 or more retractions were retracted because of fraud (Table S2).9% (n = 390) of retractions for fraud or suspected fraud in the modern biomedical literature (Fig. Perhaps most significantly. Previous investigators have found that many retracted articles continue to be cited as if still valid work (15. A gradual trend toward increasing time-to- retraction over time was detected (Fig. such as reports from the Office A Fraud or Suspected Fraud B Plagiarism C Duplicate Publication MEDICAL SCIENCES Fig. this study differs from some previous analyses in the use of and limited overlap (Table 1). For example. Citation of Retracted Articles. A small number of authors were responsible for multiple retractions. Country of origin of publications retracted for fraud or suspected fraud (A). or duplicate publication.

30).0243).. Retraction Watch.pnas. of retraction in 158 instances (Table S1). news media. Among 285 investigations concluded by publication in prestigious venues can be an incentive to perform the Office of Research Integrity from 2001 to 2010. 3.0001). Germany. Most articles retracted for fraud have working in the laboratory of Efraim Racker remain in the liter. the role of error in retractions (3.1142. suspected fraud. 6. The mean journal-impact factor of articles retracted because of fraud/suspected fraud or error was significantly different from that of papers retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (D) (error bars ± SEM. The present original records to document ethics review and informed recent increase in the incidence of retractions and the differing consent (18. One factor is the increased We further note that not all articles suspected of fraud have detection of misconduct. the mean impact factor Although some retraction announcements are specific and was found to be significantly higher for articles retracted for detailed. Several articles authored by Mark Spector when he was the type of misconduct. K. and speak to the need for ation of secondary sources led to changes in the perceived cause uniform standards regarding retraction notices (5). The US Office of Research Integrity was formed traction. R2 = 0. 3 A and B). A Fraud or Suspected Fraud B Error C Plagiarism or Duplicate Publication D Mean IF by Cause Fig. The Lancet and British Medical Journal expressed retractions followed the formation of the Office of Scientific serious reservations about the validity of the Indo-Mediterra. Chandra was found to have com. 3 and Table 1).1073/pnas. P < 0. the disproportionately high payoffs to scientists for vestigations are available. Announcements are often written by the authors of between impact factor and retraction for fraud or error has been the retracted article themselves (27). Furthermore. no fraud.0001). Relation of journal-impact factor to retractions for fraud or suspected fraud. R2 = 0. These factors have contributed to the systematic un- in 1992 and is charged with the oversight of misconduct allega. Therefore.08664. 21). The modest correlation between impact factor and time-to- than 9 y (28).0001) and error (B) (n = 437 articles in 218 journals. who may be understandably noted previously (4. derestimation of the role of misconduct and the overestimation of tions involving federally sponsored research. 19). 29. pected fraud and error (Fig. P < 0. of Research Integrity. error. and other Chemistry.g. Policies regarding retraction announcements vary retraction argues against an explanation based on increased widely among journals. Japan) and are particularly prob- data fabrication (24). As the consider. the retraction notice is insufficient to ascertain traction according to cause (Figs. In contrast. 2) argue that incentives may vary with (20. but only a single duplicate publication often arise from countries that lack a article was retracted (25). and plagiarism. even though considerable evidence was longstanding research tradition. Integrity (the predecessor of the Office of Research Integrity) nean Diet Heart Study after the primary author was unable to and passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989. and re. P = 0. Journal-impact factor showed a highly significant correlation with the number of retractions for fraud or suspected fraud (A) (n = 889 articles in 324 journals. An association the journal. R2 = 0. or error. Alternatively. despite documentation that Spector committed (e. we conclude that for Differences in the temporal and geographic patterns of re- many retractions. the length of work with excessive haste (31) or to engage in unethical practices investigation averaged 20. the greater uncertainty associated with cutting-edge research. routinely decline to provide any explanation for re- public records. R. . The first discernible increase in been retracted. and such infractions often are obtained to suggest that other publications were also fraudulent associated with lower-impact journals (Fig. and some. compared with those retracted information regarding the reason for retraction was provided by for plagiarism or duplicate publication (Fig. in. plagiarism and mitted fraud in the performance of clinical trials. traction notices are frequently made before the full results of in. such as the Journal of Biological scrutiny alone. This finding may reflect the reluctant to implicate themselves in misconduct. 4). a simple explanation for retractions. United States.48 mo in duration and ranged up to more (4). greater scrutiny accorded to articles in high-impact journals and vestigation of suspected misconduct is a lengthy process.org/cgi/doi/10. 3D). many are uninformative or opaque. In 119 instances. yet the original articles have not been retracted patterns by region (Fig. and a slight correlation with the number of retractions for plagiarism or duplicate publication (C) (n = 490 articles in 357 journals. A (26). or duplicate publication. P < 0. originated in countries with longstanding research traditions ature (22. 23). 1A and 2) militate against the true cause of a retraction. the current number of articles retracted because highly significant correlation was found between the journal- of fraud represents an underestimation of the actual number of impact factor and the number of retractions for fraud or sus- fraudulent articles in the literature. but the higher proportion of fraud in highly 17030 | www.01420.1212247109 Fang et al. lematic for high-impact journals.

92 health import. resulting in a cascade of retracted articles.Table 1.12 the retraction notice (37).08 fraud can trigger a systematic review of an author’s entire research output.55 ical Journal.52 2005 Science article by Fukuhara et al. FEMS Immunology & Communications Medical Microbiology.08 cology.72 to reach back further in time to retract articles.02 retracted in recent years may reflect a growing tendency for editors Clinical Rheumatology 4 1.43 Biology.77 Blood. even though the article was retracted Anesthesiology 5 5.96 long as detailed descriptions regarding the reasons for re- Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 5 1.24 IF. Cont. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.77 but it is less obvious why other retracted articles continue to be Error cited. Molecular and Cellular The Journal of Clinical Investigation 23 15. public International Journal of Cancer 10 4. and Yonsei Med- Journal of Hazardous Materials 15 4.55 decline in citation rate (17).00 The longer average time-to-retraction when articles are re- of Sciences tracted because of fraud (Table 2) corroborates earlier studies Journal of Child and Adolescent 4 None based on limited datasets (4. and the PDF version includes a copy of The Journal of Biological Chemistry 7 5. This practice suggests that under certain 11 journals* 4* – circumstances. but an immediate and severe British Journal of Anaesthesia 11 3.47 cessing and access to electronic publications may have made of Sciences plagiarism easier to perform but have also facilitated its de- Blood 21 9. Contraception. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. Many scientists continue to cite the Journal of Virology 7 5. No. does not indicate that the article has been retracted. A Biochemical and Biophysical Research 7 2. Journal of the The Journal of Immunology 34 5. Journal Blood 28 9.99 articles. 6. Journal of Cellular Physiology. of Journal articles IF Journal articles IF Total International Journal of Cardiology 4 4.77 Infection and Immunity 14 4.08 partial and full retractions. Anesthesia & Analgesia 40 3. Viral Immunology. Neurology.85 decline in citations is not inevitable (Fig.24 on science is therefore limited.52 search.16 fraud and error should be a higher priority (32).86 lication.97 The trend toward a longer average time-to-retraction for articles Resuscitation 4 3. of No.45 Anesthesia & Analgesia 4 3. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research. and frequent citation as a source of controversy. Croatian Medical Journal.12 benefits of publishing in such venues are powerful incentives for Anesthesia & Analgesia 33 3. Recent technological advances facilitating word pro- Proceedings of the National Academy 27 10.86 American Chemical Society.07 fraud (4. Journal of Med- ical Primatology. particularly those retracted because of error. Annals of the New York Academy 5 3. and Plant Physiology.07 Proceedings of the National Academy 69 10.45 3) include no articles retracted for plagiarism or duplicate pub- The Journal of Immunology 30 5.24 to uncertainty as to whether the work remains valid (36).83 Neurosurgery.06 metic properties (38). PNAS | October 16. The Journal of Immunology.12 16 journals† 3† – Nature 44 36. scientists continue to find utility in retracted Plagiarism/duplicate publication Molecules and Cells 8 1. A PDF version of a 2001 Nature article by Makarova Science 37 32.83 article in the Lancet (34) is a special case. Langmuir. Journals with most retracted articles Table 1. † Cell 22 34.11 Science 70 32. Journal of Clinical On- The New England Journal of Medicine 16 50. Current Eye Re- Biochemical and Biophysical Research 18 2.52 of Sciences Communications The Journal of Biological Chemistry 54 5.19 because of concerns about the cytokine’s reported insulin mi- Infection and Immunity 5 4. and Proceedings of the National Academy 36 10. 109 | no. 42 | 17031 .79 tection (33). The 20 most highly cited retracted articles (Table Science 32 32.43 discouraged.45 et al.79 of Ethnopharmacology. 2012 | vol.77 Our findings confirm that retraction can cause a persistent Journal of Hazardous Materials 13 4.50 traction are provided. The impact of plagiarism and duplicate publication Nature 19 36. and Phytotherapy Research 7 2.80 as an adipocytokine. Recognition of The New England Journal of Medicine 4 50. 32). continues to be cited Communications even though both the HTML and PDF versions are clearly Cell 7 34. and may be attributable in part to MEDICAL SCIENCES Psychiatric Nursing the lengthy investigative process required to establish misconduct. The Wakefield The EMBO Journal 11 8.32 article by Fukuhara et al. Blood. which might contribute Nature 25 36. S3). Molecular and Cellular Biology 15 5.47 supports a policy of continued access to retracted articles as Biotechnology Advances 5 10.07 *Biochemistry.47 two authors disputed whether iron-containing impurities in- of Sciences validated the articles conclusions (35). impact factor. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. although these practices are to be The Journal of Clinical Investigation 17 15.06 Fraud/suspected fraud prestigious journals is consistent with the suggestion that the The Journal of Biological Chemistry 37 5.77 marked as retracted. given its sequential The New England Journal of Medicine 11 50. 39). Cardiovascular Research. Cell 13 34. Archives of Iranian Medicine 4 0. for its initial identification of visfatin The Lancet 6 33. Transplant Proceedings. the present study suggests that the reduction of Cancer Research 16 8. The correlation Fang et al. The EMBO Journal. The EMBO Journal 15 8.47 Biochemical and Biophysical Research 4 2. extensive media attention. Molecular and Cellular Biology 10 5.

4. Journal-impact factor correlated inversely with time-to-retraction for arti- cles retracted because of fraud (n = 697. A better Table 3. a comprehensive review of 2.1236. . Most cited retracted articles First author Journal Year published Year retracted Times cited* Reason for retraction Wakefield Lancet 1998 2004. (iii) misconduct risks damaging the credibility The rise in the rate of retractions raises concern about the of science.1 Unknown 182 22. P = 0. Mean time-to-retraction by category Months to retract Cause of retraction n (Mean) SD All causes* 2. that: (i) only a fraction of fraudulent articles are retracted.2 Fraud (fabrication/falsification) 697 46. However. 0. 2010 758 Fraud Reyes Blood 2001 2009 740 Error Fukuhara Science 2005 2007 686 Error Nakao Lancet 2003 2009 626 Fraud Chang Science 2001 2006 512 Error Kugler Nature Medicine 2000 2003 494 Fraud Rubio Cancer Research 2005 2010 457 Error Gowen Science 1998 2003 395 Fraud Makarova Nature 2001 2006 375 Error Hwang Science 2004 2006 368 Fraud Potti The New England Journal of Medicine 2006 2011 361 Fraud Brugger The New England Journal of Medicine 1995 2001 336 Fraud Van Parijs Immunity 1999 2009 330 Fraud Potti Nature Medicine 2006 2011 328 Fraud Schön Science 2000 2002 297 Fraud Chiu Nature 2005 2010 281 Error Cooper Science 1997 2005 264 Fraud Le Page Cell 2000 2005 262 Error Kawasaki Nature 2004 2006 243 Fraud Hwang Science 2005 2006 234 Error *As of June 22.org/cgi/doi/10.8 38. between time-to-retraction and impact factor (Fig. 1B). played a more prominent role than previously appreciated. S2) demonstrates that fraudulent articles can go undetected for many years.0 Other 108 19. P = 0. it is important to recognize increased attention to ethics in the training of scientists.047 articles re. R2 = 0.4 *Some articles fall into more than one category.pnas.047 32.8 31.1212247109 Fang et al. In conclusion. R2 = on the average time-to-retraction can be substantial.6 Duplicate publication 290 27. (ii) this attention alone is unlikely to be successful in curbing poor there are other more common sources of unreliability in the research practices.0 Plagiarism 200 26. although the effect appears to be quite modest. 4B) suggests that the greater visibility and enhanced scrutiny of high-impact journals may contribute to more rapid retraction of fraudulent papers by these journals. Although articles productive incentives that influence scientists (45. Furthermore.9 34. (B) Time-to-retraction as a function of impact factor. and journalists in identifying and documenting retracted because of fraud represent a very small percentage of research misconduct. 17032 | www. and investigations by institutions.0 30.0 28.4 30.Table 2. and readers. 46).1073/pnas.01441. our findings suggest a need for the scientific literature (Fig.0414. (A) Time-to-retraction as a function of year of retraction.0015) but not tracted from the biomedical literature reveals that misconduct has other causes.4 Suspected fraud 192 29. Most articles by authors with large numbers of retractions (Table S2) were retracted because of misconduct. Our findings underscore the importance of vigilance by reviewers. Twelve of Mori’s retracted articles had been in the literature for 5 y or more.0 32. editors. The Mori case (Fig. and these include some of the most notorious cases in the history of research ethics. demonstrating that the impact of serial retractions Fig.1 25.1 Error 437 26. Such cases may be revealed only for- tuitously when exposed by an attentive reviewer or whistleblower (40). govern- ment agencies. literature (41–44). 2012. and (iv) fraud may be a sign of underlying counter- health of the scientific enterprise itself (32).

grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177. Spector M. domyosarcoma. reviewed by all authors and any discrepancies were resolved. released June 28. Solutions to address the specific problem of and other public records.076) was used instead of the 5-y impact factor (30. Res Policy 41:276–290. Sawada S. partial re- 11. Jensen K. (2005) 436:1200. an enhanced focus on ethics. Available at http://grants. Marcus A (2012) Retraction Watch. et al. Nutrition 17:286. Horton R (2005) Expression of concern: Indo-Mediterranean diet heart study. Ramaswamy S (2007) Quality of protein crystal structures. 2012. 2012. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately com. 413:716–718.understanding of retracted publications can inform efforts to present study will prompt discussion among scientists and the reduce misconduct and error in science. 109 | no. de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. 2012 | vol. Fukuhara A. Available at www. (2001) Magnetic carbon. latter was felt to be anomalous. 737–738. Begley CG. Pepinsky RB. Sievert M. Fang FC. an author was contacted to clarify retractions may include the increased use of checklists by authors a published retraction notice. Thomson Reuters (2012) 2011 Journal Citation Reports. (1998) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia. Kornfeld DS (2012) Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. 47. 2012. We hope that the (GraphPad Software). 12. PLoS Med 2:e124. PLoS ONE 4:e5738.html. 255:8370–8373. and the devel. invalid scientific Epidemiol 61:464–470. We checked against the annual reports of the Office of Research Integrity. 79:3855–3859. (2006) Retraction: Magnetic carbon. 7. Fang et al. Office of Research Integrity (2011) Findings of Misconduct in Science/Research Mis. Merz JF (2008) Empirical developments in retraction. Brown EN. 6. Bois PR. Nature 478: 23. et al. may result.com/1985/07/13/us/ex-columbia-worker-takes-blame- for-errors. Accessed June 28. BMJ 331: or mistakes? Med J Aust 185:152–154.nih. J Cell Biol 177:563. Wilford JN (July 13. BMJ 304:1015–1019. Trikalinos NA. Casadevall A (2011) Retracted science and the retraction index. Oransky I. Liu SV (2006) Top journals’ top retraction rates. Nature 481:21–23. Lancet. 35. 40. Nature 339:91–93. Each classification decision was independently and reviewers. (2010) Overexpression of caveolin-1 in adult T-cell leukemia. Meguid MM (2005) Retraction. 47). Nature. Fang FC (2012) Winner takes all. O’Neal S. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. 3. suspected which is based on a winner-takes-all economics that confers fraud. Accessed July 13. retractions because of misconduct undermine science and its impact on society. PNAS | October 16. 18. (2012) Science publishing: How to stop plagiarism. In one case (Acta Crystallographica A). Nature 483:531–533. news media. Smith R (2005) Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. 8.2-diacylglycerol increase 32. MEDICAL SCIENCES 22. 33. other. 4. Singh RB. Res Commun 180:1164. Evangelou E.nytimes. Nature 440:707. Lancet 360:1455–1461. 2012. Ethics 34:807–809. Williams P (2011) Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of entire_whitepaper. Accessed July 13. 19. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism stitutional investigations of alleged misconduct. html. (2005) Expression of concern. Martinson BC. 14. traction and citations to the publications. J Med Ethics 37:567–570. We have The database used for this study was compiled from a search of all articles previously argued that increased retractions and ethical breaches indexed by PubMed as retracted publications in English on May 3. et al. because the national agencies. Racker E (1981) A mouse homolog to the avian 26–28.retractionwatch. Casadevall A. Murray F (2012) Governing knowledge in the scientific com- 42. Office of Research Integrity (1993) NIH Guide. used when available. (2007) FOXO1a acts as a selective tumor suppressor in alveolar rhab. Accessed July 13. Science. the 2011 impact opment of novel reward systems for science (32). In one case.councilscienceeditors. Office of Research Integrity (2001–2010) Annual Reports. Infect Immun 80: randomised single-blind trial. and retraction (2007) 318:565.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-084.nih. com/JCR. literature. Available at http://ori. et al. research. Makarova TL. Sci Ethics 1:91–93. assigned a value of 0. fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 37:249–253. the establishment of uniform (Thomson Reuters. 9. Fang FC. Redman BK. D Biol Crystallogr 63:941–950. 21. Druss BG (2006) Retractions in the research literature: Misconduct 26. 351:637–641.gov/ 34. nary artery disease in high risk patients (Indo-Mediterranean Diet Heart Study): A 46. (2005) Visfatin: A protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the 13. 42 | 17033 . Casadevall A. 897–901. Racker E (1989) A view of misconduct in science. Spector M. Accessed July 13. Hu KQ (1991) Endothelin stimulates a sustained 1. 36. 10. Pfeifer MP. Acad 16. Garner H. Ioannidis JP (2008) Falsified papers in high-impact jour- 115:2220–2230. Anderson MS. 1. Singh RB. Fukuhara A. Acta Crystallogr Available at http://www.org/files/public/ 5. 2012. Wager E. Dedicated factor (2. Marcus SC. ranging from improved training of scientists to the ditional information regarding retracted articles for which the reason for identification of mechanisms to provide more consistent funding retraction remained unclear.1. Casadevall A (2012) Reforming science: Structural reforms.html. duplicate publication. 28. et al. et al. 288–291. 46. Accessed July 13. Nath SB. (2002) Effect of an Indo-Mediterranean diet on progression of coro. nals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. 2. and protein kinase C activation in bovine aortic smooth muscle cells. basis of retraction announcements. et al. improved training in logic. 2012. Available at http://grants.pdf. Lancet 43. (1992) Randomised controlled trial of cardioprotective diet in patients with 44. and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Iossifov I. Cokol M. Nature 484:29–31. 38. Yarandi HN. Budd JM. 27. Fang FC (2012) Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Rzhetsky A (2007) How many scientific pa- wordpress. Council of Science Editors (2012) CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Sci- mit research fraud? J Med Ethics 37:113–117. and 5-y impact factors were guidelines for retractions and retraction notices. 31. Snodgrass GL (1990) The continued use of retracted. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic re- 366:354–356. Stephan P (2012) Research efficiency: Perverse incentives. and retraction (2010) 375:445. 17. jobs. at least in part. pers should be retracted? EMBO Rep 8:422–423. 41. 30. JAMA 280:296–297. Journals without an impact factor were can play an invaluable role in supporting and overseeing in. and included Retraction Watch. 29. et al. Articles were classified according to cause of retraction as fraud. Available at http://webofknowledge. error. 45. et al. Wakefield AJ. or unknown on the disproportionate rewards to winners in the form of grants. BMJ 331:266. Racker E (1980) Phosphorylation of the beta subunit of Na+K+ -ATPase in Ehrlich ascites tumor by a membrane-bound protein kinase. the formation of a centralized were based on the 2011 edition of Journal Citation Reports Science Edition database of scientific misconduct. such as the US Office for Research Integrity. 37. J Clin 15. Biochem Biophys Infect Immun 80:891–896. An have also proposed a set of reforms to strengthen the scientific internet search using the Google search engine was performed to seek ad- enterprise. and retraction conduct. 39. view and meta-analysis of survey data. probability and statis. 2012) (48). non-specific colitis. Furman JL. traction in (2004) 363:750. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research 24. sarcoma virus src protein is a member of a protein kinase cascade. JAMA 263:1420–1423. (2007) Retraction. King GL. Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. retracted articles were cross- and prizes at a time of research funding scarcity (32. entific Journal Publications. Schultz TR (1998) Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for re- Med 87:877–882. Infect Immun gov/annual_reports. Rodriguez-Esteban R. J Med effects of insulin. for science (32. Science 318:565. Impact factors tics. J Biol Chem 48. et al.646). 307:426–430. Blood.com. New York Times. Cell 25:9–21. 1985) Ex-Columbia worker takes blame for errors. Available at www. 25. Medline retractions 1988–2008. society they serve to find measures to improve the quality and Given that most scientific work is publicly funded and that reliability of the scientific literature. 2012. 46). Vogt VM. and retraction (2010) 116:1386. the surge of retractions suggests a need to Methods reevaluate the incentives driving this phenomenon. Makarova TL. 20. plagiarism. Nature 435: recent acute myocardial infarction: Results of one year follow up.hhs. Sci Am 307:13. Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer munity: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. In addition. from the incentive system of science.

pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1212247109 1 of 2 . Fang et al.9% (n = 390) of retractions for fraud or suspected fraud (n = 889). www. Timeline of retracted articles from the laboratory of N. 10.1212247109 Fig.Supporting Information       Supporting Information Corrected November 28. S1. Fig. S2. The impact of research groups with multiple retractions. Each line represents one article and the length of the line is proportional to the time from publication to retraction.1073/pnas. 2012 Fang et al. Mori. Thirty-eight laboratories with greater than or equal to five retractions accounted for 43.

www. Rates of citation were obtained from the Web of Science (1). S3. 2012.pnas. Other Supporting Information Files Table S1 (DOCX) Table S2 (DOCX) Fang et al.com/WOS. Accessed June 22. 1. Fig. Rates of citation following retraction of selected highly cited articles.org/cgi/content/short/1212247109 2 of 2 . Thomson Reuters (2012) Web of Science. Available at http://webofknowledge.