Media attention to retracted research suggests that a substantial number of papers are corrupted by misinformation. In reality, every paper contains misinformation; at issue is whether the balance of correct versus incorrect information is acceptable. This paper postulates that analysis of retracted research papers can provide insight into medical misinformation, although retracted papers are not a random sample of incorrect papers. Error is the most common reason for retraction and error may be the principal cause of misinformation as well. Still, one-quarter of retracted papers are fraudulent, and misinformation may also arise through fraud. This paper hypothesises that error and fraud are the main sources of misinformation and that error is more common than fraud. Retraction removes misinformation from the literature; bias is non-retracted misinformation. Bias arises when scientific impropriety results in false research findings. Impropriety can involve experimental design, data collection, data analysis, or data presentation. Yet impropriety also arises through earnest error or statistical naiveté; not all bias is fraud. Several measures are proposed to minimise misinformation in the medical literature, including: greater detail in the clinical trial registry, with rigorous definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria and primary endpoints; clear statistical criteria for every aspect of clinical trials, especially sample size; responsibility for data integrity that accrues to all named authors; increased transparency as to how the costs of research were paid; and greater clarity as to the reasons for retraction. Misinformation can arise without malicious intent; authors of incorrect papers are owed a presumption of incompetence, not malice.
- Data fabrication
- data falsification
- head injury
- professional misconduct
- scientific research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?
- Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
- Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk?
- Why unethical papers should be retracted
- Empirical developments in retraction
- Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
- Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?
- Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018
- Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study
- Misinformation: an empirical study with scientists and communicators during the COVID-19 pandemic