Article info
The concise argument
Highlights from this issue
- Correspondence to Søren Holm, BMJ, production.jme{at}bmjgroup.com
Citation
Highlights from this issue
Publication history
- Accepted February 24, 2011
- First published March 17, 2011.
Online issue publication
March 17, 2011
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?
- Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018
- Why unethical papers should be retracted
- Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
- The concise argument
- Misinformation in the medical literature: What role do error and fraud play?
- Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study
- Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
- Empirical developments in retraction
- Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central