Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication

Abstract

To gain a better understanding of the problem of dealing with publications whose integrity is subsequently challenged, experience in a well-documented case of research fraud was reviewed. At the University of California San Diego, a faculty committee evaluated 135 publications of Robert Slutsky, MD, and reported to each of the corresponding 30 journals whether each article was<i>valid</i>, questionable, or<i>fraudulent</i>, requesting publication of the criteria and the conclusions. Journals responded slowly to this request; half required additional letters over a 2-year period to elicit a reply. Of the 13 journals that had<i>only</i>valid articles, 5 printed a statement to that effect. Statements concerning 46 of 60 nonvalid articles were eventually published. Journals' inconsistent identification of published statements made it difficult to retrieve them by electronic searching. Only 7 notices covering 15 articles were found by searching under the Medical Subject Heading "Retraction of Publication"; scanning the entire bibliography retrieved 18 articles with retraction notations. A poll showed that journals rarely have written procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct; in our experience, journals were reluctant to accept authorized retractions or corrections when coauthors failed to act. (<i>JAMA</i>. 1990;263:1416-1419)