Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://repositorio.accefyn.org.co/handle/001/951
Cómo citar
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Gutiérrez, Sneider A. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Barbosa, Hamilton J. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cuero, Manuel S. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Duarte, Edison J. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Gaitán, Francy E. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lozano, Jaime L. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Meneses, Arlid | - |
dc.contributor.author | Olaya, Jenny L. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pacheco, Gustavo F. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rodríguez, Cristian C. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Clavijo, Jairo A. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Vallejo, Gustavo A. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-15T14:39:08Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-15T14:39:08Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016-12-26 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorio.accefyn.org.co/handle/001/951 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Las herramientas informáticas han permitido la detección de diversas manifestaciones de mala conducta en investigación en la literatura científica. Organismos como The Office for Research Integrity (ORI), el Comité de Ética de la Publicación (COPE), el Retraction Watch y las academias de ciencias de los países, organizan cursos, seminarios e investigaciones para promover valores como la honestidad, la imparcialidad, la objetividad, la fiabilidad, la responsabilidad y el escepticismo en la comunicación científica. En este trabajo se analizaron 1.373 artículos registrados en PubMed entre 1959 y 2015, cuyo texto y nota de retractación eran de libre acceso. Se observó que los artículos retractados entre 2010 y 2015 casi duplicaron el acumulado de los 44 años anteriores. El error admitido, el plagio o autoplagio y la falsificación o fabricación de datos, se presentaron en 32,8 %, 23,7 % y 19,7 % de las ocasiones, respectivamente. En los primeros cuatro meses del 2015, se retractaron 37 artículos por revisoría falsa o influencia de los autores sobre los revisores, una modalidad de mala conducta en la investigación no detectada en estudios anteriores. Los porcentajes de artículos retractados de libre acceso en relación con los artículos de libre acceso publicados por año variaron de 0,0072 % (1/13.861) en 1966 a 0,0472 % (213/45.1021) en el 2013. El porcentaje de artículos retractados en relación con los artículos publicados provenientes de 54 países en el mismo periodo (1959 a 2015), varió entre 0,0042 % (1/23.761) y 0,2732 % (1/366). El número de artículos retractados con más de 10 autores fue menor que aquellos con 6 a10 o 1 a 5 autores. La retractación de 794 (57,8 %) artículos se presentó antes de los dos primeros años y 579 (42.2 %) después de dos años de su publicación. La retractación de 714 (52 %) artículos fue solicitada por los autores, de 485 (35,3 %) por los editores y de 70 (5,1 %) de común acuerdo por ambas partes. El 80,8% (1.110/1.373) de los artículos retractados habían sido citados. En el artículo se discute la importancia de promover la educación sobre la retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para contribuir a la integridad de la ciencia y a la confianza de la sociedad en la comunidad científica. | spa |
dc.description.abstract | Informatics tools have enabled the detection of various types of misconduct regarding research studies in scientific literature. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (ORI), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Retraction Watch and countries’ academies of science sponsor courses, seminars and research to promote values such as honesty, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, responsibility and skepticism in scientific communication. We analyzed here 1,373 articles recorded in PubMed from 1959 to 2015 with open access to their text and retraction notes. We observed that articles retracted from 2010 to 2015 almost duplicated those accumulated during the previous 44 years; in 32.8% of them retraction was due to admitted error; 23.7% to plagiarism or self-plagiarism, and 19.7% to data falsification or fabrication. Thirty-seven articles were retracted during the first four months of 2015 due to false review or author influence on reviewers, which represents a research misconduct not detected in previous studies. The percentages of open access retracted articles published per year varied from 0.0072% (1/13,861) in 1966 to 0.0472% (213/451,021) in 2013. The percentage of articles retracted compared to articles published from 54 countries throughout the world during the same period (1959-2015) varied from 0.0042% (1/23,761) to 0.2732% (1/366). The amount of articles retracted signed by more than 10 authors was lower than that for 6 to10 or 1 to 5 authors. We found that 794 (57.8%) articles were retracted before the first two years and 579 (42.2%) more than two years after their publication. The retraction of 714 (52%) of the articles was requested by the authors, of 485 (35.3%), by the editors, and of 70 (5.1%) by mutual agreement; 80.8% (1,110/1,373) of the retracted articles had been cited. We discuss here the importance of promotion, education, retraction and correction of scientific literature as a contribution to scientific integrity and society’s confidence in the scientific community. | eng |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | spa |
dc.language.iso | spa | spa |
dc.publisher | Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales | spa |
dc.rights | Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International | spa |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ | spa |
dc.source | Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales | spa |
dc.title | La retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para conservar la integridad y la confianza en la ciencia: un análisis de retractaciones de publicaciones biomédicas de libre acceso en PubMed, 1959-2015 | spa |
dc.type | Artículo de revista | spa |
dcterms.audience | Estudiantes, Profesores, Comunidad científica colombiana | spa |
dcterms.references | Acosta, O. & Celis, J. (2014). The emergence of doctoral programs in the Colombian higher education system: Trends and challenges. Prospects. 44 (3): 463-481. doi: 10.1007/s11125-014-9310-5 | spa |
dcterms.references | Agresti, A. & Coull, B.A. (1998). Approximate is better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions. The American Statistician. 52 (2): 119-126. doi: 10.2307/2685469 | spa |
dcterms.references | Atlas, M.C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 92(2): 242-250 | spa |
dcterms.references | Avey, M.T., Fenwick, N., Griffin, G. (2015). The use of syste-matic reviews and reporting guidelines to advance the implementation of the 3rd Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 54 (2): 153-162 | spa |
dcterms.references | Blyth, C.R., & Hutchinson, D.W. (1960). Table of Neyman-shortest unbiased confidence intervals for the binomial parametert. Biométrica. 47 (3-4): 381-391. doi: 10.2307/2333308 | spa |
dcterms.references | Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 342(6154):61-65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 | spa |
dcterms.references | Bretscher, A. (2013). Magazine or journal—what is the difference? The role of the monitoring editor. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 24 (7):887-889. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E12-12-0899 | spa |
dcterms.references | Budd, J.M., Sievert, M.E., Schultz, T.R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 280 (3): 296 -298. doi: 10.1001/jama. 280.3.296 | spa |
dcterms.references | Cañedo, R. (2009). Cuba, Iberoamérica y la producción científica en salud en la base de datos PubMed en el periodo 1999-2008. ACIMED. 20 (1): 1-27 | spa |
dcterms.references | Carafoli, E. (2015). Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei. 26 (3): 369-382. doi: 10.1007/s12210-015-0415-4 | spa |
dcterms.references | Charlier, P., Bridoux, V., Watier, L., Menetrier, M., Grandmaison, G., Herve, C. (2011). Ethics requirements and impact factor. Journal of Medical Ethics. 38 (4): 253-255. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100174 | spa |
dcterms.references | COPE. (2009). Retraction guidelines. Fecha de consulta: 24 de abril de 2015. Disponible en: http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf. | spa |
dcterms.references | COPE. (2014). What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document. Fecha de consulta: 24 de abril de 2015. Disponible en: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_ DiscussionDocument_0.pdf. | spa |
dcterms.references | COPE. (2015). COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes. Disponible en: Fecha de consulta: 23 de abril de 2015. http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-review-processes#_blank. | spa |
dcterms.references | Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. (2011). Education: The PhD factory. Nature. 472 (7343): 276-279. doi: 10.1038/472276ª | spa |
dcterms.references | Das, A.K. (2016). ‘Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 72 (2):172-4. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014 | spa |
dcterms.references | Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10 (12): e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 | spa |
dcterms.references | Fang, F.C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Editorial: Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855-3859. doi: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11 | spa |
dcterms.references | Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (3): 17028-17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 | spa |
dcterms.references | Fulton, A.S., Coates, A.M., Williams, M.T., Howe, P.R., Hill, A.M. (2015). Persistent citation of the only published randomised controlled trial of Omega-3 supplementation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease six years after its retraction. Publications. 3 (1): 17-26. doi: 10.3390/publications3010017 | spa |
dcterms.references | Grieneisen, M.L. & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e44118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 | spa |
dcterms.references | Haug C.J. (2015). Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. The New England Journal of Medicine. 373 (25): 2393-2395. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512330 | spa |
dcterms.references | Hermerén, G. (2008). Integridad y mala conducta en el ámbito investigador. Sociedad Española de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular. 156: 5-10 | spa |
dcterms.references | Jinha, A.E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing. 23(3): 258-263. doi: 10.1087/20100308 | spa |
dcterms.references | Lu S.F., Jin J.Z., Uzzi B., Jones B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports. 3: 3146. DOI: 10.1038/srep03146 | spa |
dcterms.references | Masic, I. (2012). Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Informatica Medica. 20 (4): 208-213. doi: 10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213 | spa |
dcterms.references | Norvaiša, R. (2011). Journal impact factor and academic ethics. Evolution of Science and Technology. 3 (2): 120-128. doi: 10.3846/est.2011.10 | spa |
dcterms.references | Office of Research Integrity. (2014). Misconduct. Disponible en: http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct. Fecha de consulta: 9 de septiembre de 2015. | spa |
dcterms.references | Partridge, L. (2015). Celebrating 350 years of Philosophical Transactions: Life science papers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 370:(20140380). doi: 10.1098/rstb. 2014.0380 | spa |
dcterms.references | Quesemberry, C.P. & Hurst, D.C. (1964). Large sample simulta-neous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Technometrics. 6 (2): 191-195. doi: 10.1080/ 00401706. 1964.10490163 | spa |
dcterms.references | Resnik, D.B., Wagner, E., Kissling, G.E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 103 (3), 136-138. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006 | spa |
dcterms.references | Resnik, D.B. & Stewart, C.N. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Account Res. 19 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948 | spa |
dcterms.references | Sabir, H., Kumbhare, S., Parate, A., Kumar, R., Das, S. (2015). Scientific misconduct: A perspective from India. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 18 (2): 177-184. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9603-8 | spa |
dcterms.references | Shewan, L.G. & Coats, A.J.S. (2010). Ethics in the authorship and publishing of scientific articles. International Journal of Cardiology. 144 (1): 1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.07.030 | spa |
dcterms.references | Sistema Nacional de Instituciones de Educación Superior- SNIES. (2016). Módulo de consultas. Fecha de consulta: 26 de mayo de 2016. Disponible en: http://snies.mineducacion.gov.co/consultasnies/programa#. Fecha de consulta: 26 de mayo de 2016 | spa |
dcterms.references | Sox, H.C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine. 144 (8): 609-13. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123 | spa |
dcterms.references | Steen, R.G., Casadevall, A., Fang, F.C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PloS One. 8 (7): e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397. | spa |
dcterms.references | The Lancet. (2015a). Editorial: China ́s medical research integrity questioned. The Lancet. 385 (9976): 1361. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60700-0 | spa |
dcterms.references | The Lancet. (2015b). Editorial: Correcting the scientific literature: Retraction and republication. The Lancet. 385 (9966): 394. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60137-4 | spa |
dcterms.references | The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. ISBN: 978-0-85403-890-9. The Royal Society, Londres, Inglaterra. 113 pp.: | spa |
dcterms.references | Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature. 478 (7367): 26-28. doi: 10.1038/478026a | spa |
dcterms.references | Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Disponible en: http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf. Fecha de consulta: 2 de enero de 2016 | spa |
dcterms.references | Wager, E. & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics. 37 (9): 567-570. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040964 | spa |
dc.rights.accessrights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | spa |
dc.type.driver | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | spa |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | spa |
dc.rights.creativecommons | Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0) | spa |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.18257/raccefyn.399 | - |
dc.subject.proposal | Mala conducta en investigación | spa |
dc.subject.proposal | Research misconduct | eng |
dc.subject.proposal | Ética de la comunicación científica | spa |
dc.subject.proposal | Ethics of scientific communication | eng |
dc.subject.proposal | Análisis bibliométrico | spa |
dc.subject.proposal | Bibliometrics | eng |
dc.subject.proposal | Artículos retractados | spa |
dc.subject.proposal | Retracted article | eng |
dc.type.coar | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | spa |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales | spa |
dc.relation.citationvolume | 40 | spa |
dc.relation.citationstartpage | 568 | spa |
dc.relation.citationendpage | 579 | spa |
dc.publisher.place | Bogotá, Colombia | spa |
dc.contributor.corporatename | Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales | spa |
dc.relation.citationissue | 157 | spa |
dc.type.content | DataPaper | spa |
dc.type.redcol | http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREV | spa |
oaire.accessrights | http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 | spa |
oaire.version | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 | spa |
Appears in Collections: | BA. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
4. La retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para conservar la integridad.pdf | Ciencias del Comportamiento | 407.94 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License