Carl Zimmer has a story in The New York Times charting trends in retractions of articles from major scientific journals. Consider it a different angle on the challenges outlined in this graphic that I wrote about last month. Research cited in the article notes a dramatic rise in journal retractions over the last decade. The graphic used in the Times article suggests (as does the research) that the reasons for these retractions are not limited to fraud, but include scientific mistakes and the dreaded ‘other’ category.
That there are retractions is far from ideal, but retractions serve as evidence that scientific journals can police research conduct (if only after the fact). As the researchers behind the Retraction Watch blog explain in The Boston Globe,
“The outsized increase in retractions is partly due to greater transparency, rather than more fraud; the introduction in recent years of software that efficiently detects plagiarism is responsible for many of the retractions we’re seeing, and retractions remain an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.4 million papers published every year.”
So the good in these numbers is that we’re getting a better handle on ferreting out research that shouldn’t have been published. But that better handle is attached to a bigger problem than some may have expected (and perhaps bigger than some would like to acknowledge). Both Zimmer in the Times and the Retraction Watch blog note the instance of bad conduct from top level researchers.
What to do about this? I’m not particularly persuaded of the link between the retraction trend and the structural reforms recommended by editors engaged with the problem. An increase in retractions might be addressed by increasing funding for science (one of those recommendations), but it’s hard for me to see how more retractions are necessarily a consequence of decreased funding. Now if those editors were advocating for more money to facilitate peer review at journals, the links are more obvious to me, and they might get more attention from the non scientists that matter in this conversation.
It seems that the increase in retractions and the unmasking of pervasive fraud cases is the start of something. The increase in sunshine on academic research practice needs to continue and grow. It is likely that the bad news will continue as more of what goes on gets the scrutiny it has needed for a long time. Think of it as still pulling off the band-aid that has started to smell. It won’t be pleasant, but it is necessary if there is a chance of healing.
Pasco Phronesis 