The number of retractions is way below the level at which they should be occurring. Vested self-interest of authors, institutions and journals mean that where we should have a retraction, we have a correction. These are not corrections of mistakes, but of misconduct/fraud. If our undergraduate students produce work of this sort, they get a zero. We should also consider the effect on our graduate students and postdocs. Out comes a paper in their field, they read it and get totally depressed. Why? Because some fraudster has got a paper in a “major” journal (aka one that guarantees a thesis or a tenured position) and it is clearly wrong, e.g., re-used data, copied and pasted, for different experimental conditions. Some years later they may see a “correction”. What do they do? Stay in science, remaining true to the messiness of data, become tempted to cheat or leave through disillusion? We are killing off the lifeblood of science through pandering to vested self-interest and turning a blind eye to corruption.
This is an issue of corruption. This is the correct word to use.
The cure?
There is only one cure, democracy. This means openness and transparency. I publish a paper, you have access to the raw data and are free to comment on it. If the paper is flawed, then it is retracted. If someone is incompetent, so they can talk, but actually have no understanding of the experiment, then they will find they have no place in science. We are a long way from that, but moving towards it, slowly.
While many keep their heads below the parapet and a significant number practice fraud, a growing number of people are taking action in various ways.
Below, some interesting recent posts I have come across on the problem science faces with misconduct and fraud.
Curt Rice has an excellent post on “Why you can’t trust the quality of science”
And another on “Open Evaluation: 11 sure steps – and 2 maybes – towards a new approach to peer review”
More recently, Amanda Alvarez has a post on “Steering clear of the iceberg: three ways we can fix the data-credibility crisis in science”
Finally, for those lovers of irony, a recent post on Retraction Watch regarding a “Mega Correction“. The correction is from a researcher whose legal threats closed Science Fraud. If you don’t think there is a problem, read the post at Retraction Watch and look at the paper concerned.
Ferniglab Blog 
The problem is that so many advanced investigators, labs, departments, institutes, and schools do not want the stigma that comes with retraction. So they brush the problems under the rug and wait for the matter to go away. There was a recent situation of which I am familiar (names and location withheld) where a member of a lab accused the lab head of falsifying data to get a paper published. (S/he) contacted the journal where the paper was publsihed, but, since (s/he) was not senior author, the paper was not retracted. The journal and the university were not pleased about the whole affair, but could not do anything about it because it was s/he said – sh/e said.
Retraction = loss of $. And no scientist or institution wants that.
A very sad, but perfect illustration of the corruption science has to sort out. Money is a driver, but integrity is also a driver and it is up to us to ensure the latter has the most influence.
I am also happy to receive details of this in confidence.
The following web pages show how a university can get into a terrible mess when it takes the decision to put face saving before integrity.
http://www.abettermousetrap.co.uk/whistleblower-inventor-alleges-fraud-by-manchester-university
and
http://www.cheshire-innovation.com/sali/pedsali.htm
Thank you for your nice essay. Reading your article reminds me an experience I had with ‘detecting’ of two clear cases of plagiarisms of a Ph.D. graduate that conducted in two articles from his dissertation. The articles co-authored with his supervisors, as usual case. I was following other articles of him which they also were plagiarized ones and once I notified him about such scientific misconduct in one article of him. However, seemed to me that he does not care about such issues at all as published the new two articles. This time I moved further and notified the editors of such articles and the editors found ‘clear’ cases of plagiarism and decided to retract. But, since the supervisor believed he has nothing to do with these cases (as he have not) put huge amount of pressure on the editors to not to retract. Finally, my identity revealed to the supervisor and i faced tons of pressure from him because he described my actions as traitor and … Now, I am dubious whether I should have informed the editors or not?
I think the one of the reasons (at least for this case described) is the researchers do the research and publish article just for grant/tenure/etc. there is no real interest in research per se.
Thank you for reading this very long comment.
Bright sunlight is always the best disinfectant – go public, either on your own blog or as a guest post (I am happy to host) with a carefully written description of the events.
I would agree that there is a cohort of people who like the lifestyle, but not the process.