Abstract
ABSTRACTThough protection of human research subjects is universally recognized as a critical requirement for the ethical conduct of research, few studies have examined retractions of medical articles through apparent noncompliance with that requirement. From our survey of 99 retracted papers published from 1981 to 2011, we found that the basis for those decisions was poorly explained in retraction notices and that most of the articles continued to be cited. In retraction notices, the current manner of explaining failure to protect human subjects is misleading and confusing.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
