BMJ Retract or be damned: a dangerous moment for science and the public
By editor in chief Kamran Abbasi
Quote:
Two troubling themes emerge from John Rasko and Carl Power’s examination of Macchiarini’s legacy (doi:
10.1136/bmj.p1367).
3 First is the apparent unwillingness of institutions to admit to wrongdoing by their staff. Even when allegations are proved after investigation, institutions are reluctant to act on evidence of scientific misconduct under their purview. By some estimates, a case of major scientific fraud occurs at every institution each year, yet we hear of cases only rarely.
The explanations are obvious enough. Institutions don’t want their reputations tarnished by public findings of wrongdoing, and the people complained about may often be litigious. None of this, however, serves the public. Without correction of the scientific record and transparency about misconduct, as is the case with Macchiarini, patients continue to be harmed. Self interest, unfortunately, may often be the prime motivator, which makes the argument for a national independent office of research integrity where one doesn’t exist.
Second is the unwillingness of scientific journals to retract seriously flawed data that mean the findings and conclusions cannot be relied on. When a decision to retract is finally made it may not be obvious from the journal’s website, and it is unlikely to be noted by other research websites and databases that host or mention the research paper (doi:
10.1136/bmj-2022-072929).
4 The result is that flawed research remains in the public domain unretracted, and retracted papers continue to be cited.
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1424
