Article retracted, but the message lives on.
ABSTRACT The retraction of an original article aims to ensure that readers are alerted to the fact that the findings are not trustworthy. However, the present research suggests that individuals still believe in the findings of an article even though they were later told that the data were fabricated and that the article was retracted. Participants in a debriefing condition and a no-debriefing condition learned about the scientific finding of an empirical article, whereas participants in a control condition did not. Afterward, participants in the debriefing condition were told that the article had been retracted because of fabricated data. Results showed that participants in the debriefing condition were less likely to believe in the findings than participants in the no-debriefing condition but were more likely to believe in the findings than participants in the control condition, suggesting that individuals do adjust their beliefs in the perceived truth of a scientific finding after debriefing-but insufficiently. Mediational analyses revealed that the availability of generated causal arguments underlies belief perseverance. These results suggest that a retraction note of an empirical article in a scientific journal is not sufficient to ensure that readers of the original article no longer believe in the article's conclusions.
- SourceAvailable from: jama.ama-assn.org[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study examined the impact of retracted articles on biomedical communication. To examine publications identified in the biomedical literature as having been retracted, to ascertain why and by whom the publications were retracted and to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work. A search of MEDLINE from 1966 through August 1997 for articles that had been retracted. Characteristics of retractions and citations to articles after retraction. A total of 235 articles had been retracted. Error was acknowledged in relation to 91 articles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was given in 20. Of the 235 articles, 190 were retracted by some or all of the authors; 45 were retracted by a person or organization other than the author(s). The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n = 17) or implicitly (n = 263) as though it were valid research. Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid work in the biomedical literature after publication of the retraction; these citations signal potential problems for biomedical science.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 08/1998; 280(3):296-7. · 30.39 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Common explanations for the failure of groups to solve so-called hidden profiles focus on group processes, namely insufficient discussion of unshared information and premature consensus on a suboptimal alternative. As 2 experiments show, even in the absence of such group processes, hidden profiles are hardly ever solved. In Experiment 1, participants first received individual information about a personnel selection task and then read a group discussion protocol containing full information exchange. If the individual information was misleading (hidden profile), most participants failed to detect the correct alternative. In Experiment 2, it was determined that this effect is due to preference-consistent evaluation of information that constitutes an individual-level process mediating the failure of group members to solve hidden profiles.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/2003; 84(2):322-39. · 5.08 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We describe the ongoing citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct, and characterize the papers that cite these affected articles. The citations to 102 articles named in official findings of scientific misconduct during the period of 1993 and 2001 were identified through the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, we performed a content analysis of 603 of the 5,393 citing papers to identify indications of awareness that the cited articles affected by scientific misconduct had validity issues, and to examine how the citing papers referred to the affected articles. Fewer than 5% of citing papers indicated any awareness that the cited article was retracted or named in a finding of misconduct. We also tested the hypothesis that affected articles would have fewer citations than a comparison sample; this was not supported. Most articles affected by misconduct were published in basic science journals, and we found little cause for concern that such articles may have affected clinical equipoise or clinical care.Science and Engineering Ethics 08/2009; 16(2):251-61. · 1.52 Impact Factor