Presentation at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, May 7, 2013

1. Scientific Integrity and Transparency
Under Scrutiny:
Lessons from Retraction Watch
3rd
World Conference on Research Integrity
Montreal
May 7, 2013
Ivan Oransky
Co-founder, Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky

2. Always Another Story…

3. Retractions on the Rise
http://pmretract.heroku.com/byyear

4. Most Retractions Due to Misconduct
PNAS online October 1, 2012

6. How Long Do Retractions Take?

7. How Long Do Retractions Take?

8. How Long Do Retractions Take?

9. How Long Do Retractions Take?

10. What Happens to Retracted Papers’
Citations?
-Assn of College & Research Libraries 2011

11. What Happens to Retracted Papers’
Citations?
Budd et al, 1999:
• Retracted articles received more than 2,000 post-
retraction citations; less than 8% of citations
acknowledged the retraction
• Preliminary study of the present data shows that
continued citation remains a problem
• Of 391 citations analyzed, only 6% acknowledge
the retraction

12. What Happens to Retracted Papers’
Citations?

13. What Happens to Retracted Papers’
Citations?
“…annual citations of an article drop by 65%
following retraction, controlling for article age
and calendar year. In the years prior to
retraction, there is no such decline, implying
that retractions are unanticipated by the
scientific community.”

14. Do Journals Get the Word Out?

15. Do Journals Get the Word Out?
“Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader;
31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as
retracted in any way.”

16. Do Journals Get the Word Out?
How the Naïve Reader is Alerted to Retractions
Where retraction noted Retracted papers, n (%)
Watermark on pdf 305 (41.1)
Journal website 248 (33.4)
Not noted anywhere 236 (31.8)
Note appended to pdf 128 (17.3)
pdf deleted from website 98 (13.2)

18. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”

19. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”

20. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors

21. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors
“significant originality issue”

22. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors
“significant originality issue”
“Some sentences…are directly taken from other
papers, which could be viewed as a form of
plagiarism”

23. Puzzling Policies

24. Puzzling Policies

25. Trend: Mega-Corrections

26. Trend: Mega-Corrections
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,
including mislabelling of images or choosing an image from
the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of images
was completely independent of the data analysis and so
none of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected.
We apologise for any confusion these errors may have
caused.

27. Trend: Mega-Corrections
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,
including mislabelling of images or choosing an image from
the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of images
was completely independent of the data analysis and so none
of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. We
apologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.

28. Trend: Mega-Corrections
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,
including mislabelling of images or choosing an image from
the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of images
was completely independent of the data analysis and so none
of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. We
apologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
five different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly
cropped images from original pictures were inadvertently
mislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below a
corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. In
the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells
aberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examples
are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
five different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly
cropped images from original pictures were inadvertently
mislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below a
corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. In
the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells
aberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examples
are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.

29. Trend: Mega-Corrections
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice,
including mislabelling of images or choosing an image from
the inappropriate genotype. In all cases, choice of images
was completely independent of the data analysis and so none
of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected. We
apologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex
for four different genotypes. In the process of choosing
representative pictures that reflect the results of our
analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from original
pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used
incorrectly. We provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a
with new representative images for the following genotypes:
WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-magnification picture
for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels. Original
images for every genotype and additional examples are
shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
five different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly
cropped images from original pictures were inadvertently
mislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below a
corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. In
the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells
aberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examples
are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for
five different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly
cropped images from original pictures were inadvertently
mislabelled and used incorrectly. We provide below a
corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–. In
the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells
aberrantly accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do
not migrate to the upper layers, resembling the Reeler
(Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and additional examples
are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11
cells. We have also included results from a new, reproduced
experiment recently performed with an additional cohort of
animals that shows exactly the same results.
In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’
should instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methods
summary section ‘Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Cortical
neurons from E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read
‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.
(There were mistakes in the supplementary online
material, too.)
In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’
should instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methods
summary section ‘Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Cortical
neurons from E14.5 were grown….’’ should instead read
‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.
(There were mistakes in the supplementary online
material, too.)

30. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up
http://www.labtimes.org

31. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

32. Blogs Get Aggressive

33. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

34. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://www.science-fraud.org/

35. Journals Are Listening

36. Journals Are Listening

37. Journals Are Listening

38. Journals Are Listening

39. Contact Info
ivan-oransky@erols.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky
Thanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health