A tale of three retractions: a call for standardized categorization and criteria in retraction statements
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Candal-Pedreira, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Fernández, E., Ramos, J., Campos-Varela, I., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2020). Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study. BMJ Global Health, 5(11), e003719. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003719.
Committee on Publication Ethics (2019). COPE Retraction guidelines. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.
“Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature:” Retraction of Thatcher and Patel (2011). (2016). Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000137.
Dolk, T., Freigang, C., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments. Acta Psychologica, 191, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.021.
Dolk, T., Freigang, C., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2019). Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments: Retraction notice. Acta Psychologica, 198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102886. Article 102886.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465.
Grave, J. (2021). Scientists should be open about their mistakes. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1593–1593. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01225-2.
Hosseini, M., Hilhorst, M., de Beaufort, I., & Fanelli, D. (2018). Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Jin, G. Z., Jones, B., Lu, S. F., & Uzzi, B. (2019). The reverse Matthew effect: Consequences of retraction in scientific teams. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00780.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A many Labs replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178.
Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615616374.
Martinson, B., Anderson, M. & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
Maslej, M. M., Furukawa, T. A., Cipriani, A., Andrews, P. W., & Mulsant, B. H. (2020). Individual differences in response to antidepressants: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(8), 786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4815.
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does failure to replicate really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400.
Öngür, D., & Bauchner, H. (2020). Notice of retraction: Maslej et al. Individual differences in response to antidepressants: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(6).
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Perkel, J. M. (2022). How to fix your scientific coding errors. Nature, 602, 172–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00217-0.
Rohrer, J. M., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B., Schmukle, S. C., Silberzahn, R., Willén, R. M., Carlsson, R., Lucas, R. E., Strand, J., Vazire, S., Witt, J. K., Zentall, T. R., Chabris, C. F., & Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the loss-of-confidence project. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(6), 1171–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964106.
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution, 59, 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1554/04-602.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file-drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
Sapunar, L. (2020, June 19). “Honest errors happen in science:” JAMA journal retracts paper on antidepressants. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/19/honest-errors-happen-in-science-jama-journal-retracts-paper-on-antidepressants/.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., & Barbour, D. L. (2019). Talking points: A modulating circle reduces listening effort without improving speech recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 26, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1489-7.
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., & Barbour, D. L. (2020). Talking points: A modulating circle increases listening effort without improving speech recognition in young adults. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 27, 536–543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01713-y.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.
Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1119–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024167.
Volpe, A. (2022, July 13). How to admit you’re wrong: Admitting wrongdoing isn’t a failure, it’s an opportunity. Vox. https://www.vox.com/even-better/23198698/how-to-admit-youre-wrong.
Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282.
Xu, S. B., & Hu, G. (2022). Retraction stigma and its communication via retraction notices. Minerva, 60(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09465-w.
Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2021). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research, 28(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1782203.