THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT PUBLICATION - THE SLUTSKY,ROBERT CASE
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT PUBLICATION - THE SLUTSKY,ROBERT CASE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/jama.272.2.170
复制
发表时间：
1994-07-13
影响因子：
120.7
通讯作者：
HAFNER, AW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
WHITELY, WP;RENNIE, D;HAFNER, AW
目标。-确定科学家是否能够在已发表的研究文章中发现欺诈结果，并确定最有效的纠正措施，从文献中清除欺诈结果。-回顾性病例对照研究，将已知发表过欺诈性文章的作者Robert A， Slutsky， MD的文章与一组对照文章进行比较。统计每一历年（1979年至1990年）每篇文章收到的非自引次数。引用数被转换成分数。根据Slutsky文章及其指定对照文章的引用次数，每篇Slutsky文章被分配1到3分之间的分数。在11年的研究期间，每年的平均引用数和分数都被跟踪。在斯卢茨基的工作受到公开质疑之前（1975年至1985年），科学家们引用他的文章的频率与引用对照文章的频率一样高。在斯卢茨基的工作受到质疑并在新闻媒体上发表报告后（1985年），科学家们引用他的文章的频率低于引用对照文章。1987年，加州大学圣地亚哥分校发表了一篇对斯卢茨基研究的有效性的评论后，这篇论文的引用量进一步下降。在印刷版或medline中出现撤稿后，引用数并未减少。-科学家不会，也可能无法识别已发表的论文是否具有欺诈性。然而，当人们注意到文献中存在欺诈结果时，科学界的反应是减少被污染文章的引用次数。在Slutsky的案例中，一般新闻文章和加州大学圣地亚哥分校发表的三篇综述在清除文献中的欺诈结果方面最有效，而撤稿的效果最差。
Objective.-To determine whether scientists can detect fraudulent results in published research articles and to identify corrective measures that are most effective in purging fraudulent results from the literature.Design.-Retrospective case-control study comparing articles by an author known to have published fraudulent articles, Robert A, Slutsky, MD, to a set of control articles. The number of non-self-citations received by each article during each calendar year (1979 through 1990) was counted. The citation numbers were transformed into scores. Each Slutsky article was assigned a score between 1 and 3 based on the number of citations received by the Slutsky article and each of its assigned control articles. Average citation numbers and scores were tracked for each year during the 11-year study period.Results.-Before Slutsky's work was publicly questioned (1975 to 1985), scientists cited his articles as frequently as they cited control articles. After Slutsky's work was questioned and reports were published in the news media (1985), scientists cited his articles less frequently than they cited control articles. Citations decreased further after the University of California-San Diego published a review of the validity of Slutsky's work in 1987. Citations did not decrease after the appearance of retractions in print or in MEDLINE.Conclusion.-Scientists do not, and probably cannot, identify published articles that are fraudulent. However, when alerted to the presence of fraudulent results in the literature, the scientific community responds by reducing the number of citations of the tainted articles. In the Slutsky case, general news articles and the three reviews published by the University of California-San Diego were most effective and retractions were least effective in purging fraudulent results from the literature.