Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct.

OA: closed Public-Domain
AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-04

This study analyzed PubMed indexing of 102 articles linked to scientific misconduct findings, revealing that most received corrections or retractions and retained significant citation impact despite the identified issues.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-25 · read from full text

This article examines the impact of scientific misconduct on biomedical literature, focusing on how fraudulent or flawed studies can distort the scientific record and influence subsequent research. The author analyzes specific cases where misconduct led to the retraction of papers or the correction of published data, highlighting the challenges in identifying and mitigating such errors within the academic community. A key finding is that the presence of misconduct necessitates rigorous post-publication scrutiny and robust mechanisms for error correction to maintain the integrity of biomedical knowledge. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ("Findings of Scientific Misconduct") or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the "comment" field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide "Findings of Scientific Misconduct", leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0-592). Researchers should be alert to "Comments" linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the "Findings of Scientific Misconduct' reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals.
Full text 602 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
| Original language | English | |---|---| | Pages (from-to) | 13-21 | | Journal | Science and Engineering Ethics | | Volume | 12 | | DOIs | | | Publication status | Published - 2006 | Cite this - APA - Author - BIBTEX - Harvard - Standard - RIS - Vancouver - P.J.D. Drenth Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic 966 Downloads (Pure) | Original language | English | |---|---| | Pages (from-to) | 13-21 | | Journal | Science and Engineering Ethics | | Volume | 12 | | DOIs | | | Publication status | Published - 2006 | - APA - Author - BIBTEX - Harvard - Standard - RIS - Vancouver

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-30T09:23:35.175841+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-24T06:27:14.670421+00:00
License: Public-Domain