Cracking the fraudulent-data code

Share this article:
Cracking the fraudulent-data code
Cracking the fraudulent-data code

A study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that 43.4% of retracted articles were pulled over false and fabricated data or suspicion of fraud, while errors accounted for only 21.3% of the 2,047 retracted articles listed in PubMed's index as of March 3. The study noted that PubMed references 25 million articles, going back to the 1940s.

The authors wrote that even when journals talk about false data, it can be in code. Case in point: when the journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications discovered a 1991 article it published included false and fabricated information,  its retraction read: “results were derived from experiments that were found to have flaws in methodological execution and data analysis.” The PNAS study's authors discovered the real reason—fraud—because Harvard reported it to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the PNAS authors read Harvard's report. The Office of Research Integrity is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and investigates allegations of research misconduct.

This year's ORI tally includes a case in which an accused researcher “neither admits nor denies committing research misconduct but accepts ORI has found evidence of research misconduct.” ORI closed 13 investigations last year, eight in 2010 and seven in 2009. Punishment can include avoiding government-contracted research jobs and having research vetted by a third party for a specified period of time.

The September 2011 ORI newsletter, which also serves as a printed record of case findings, acknowledged that journals may hold off publishing a retraction in the interests of being fair, yet also noted that even if an institution weighs in and an investigation closes, “a retraction may never be published, because of other factors.”

Like the PNAS researchers, the Office of Research Integrity also noted that “the text of the retractions, corrections or errata associated with falsified papers rarely explicates the details on which components of a study are false, and/or why.”
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.
close

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters

MM&M EBOOK: PATIENT ACCESS

Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Is your marketing strategy stuck in 2005?

Is your marketing strategy stuck in 2005?

It is not enough to just have a killer black book or Rolodex. The market needs agile, swift marketing

Is guidance stifling social media?

Recent FDA draft guidance was meant to help companies create FDA-compliant tweets and handle third-party misinformation on the web. What other obstacles lie in the path of effective social media use?

FDA social media guides draw flak

FDA social media guides draw flak

Two FDA guidance documents on how health product manufacturers may participate in social media have drawn criticism from industry and consumer groups.