Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors

Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

Evaluation of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine on the web of science database

BACKGROUND

The retraction of articles stands as the most significant mechanism employed to uphold the integrity of science, particularly in flawed studies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the reasons for article retractions in the field of emergency medicine and elucidate the problems arising from such retractions. The goal is to identify parameters in retracted articles that compromise scientific knowledge and raise awareness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retracted articles within the emergency medicine category were analyzed and assessed using the Web of Science database. The study sought to address the following questions: 1. In which year or years were the most articles retracted? 2. In which journals were the retracted articles published? 3. What is the distribution of topics in retracted articles? 4. What are the reasons for the retraction of articles? 5. What is the time difference and citation count between the publication and retraction years of the articles?

RESULTS

The study delved into reasons for article retractions, types of retracted articles, and other relevant factors. A total of 61 retracted articles were examined and analyzed, revealing an increasing trend in the rate of article retractions over the years. The majority of retracted articles occurred in 2023, with the highest retraction rate identified in the "Emergency Medicine International" journal. On average, articles were retracted 356 days after publication. Reasons for retracted articles included concerns related to data, authorship issues, plagiarism, duplication, and biased or fraudulent peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an examination of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine, highlighting a noteworthy increase in retractions due to various reasons. Despite retractions, it was observed that the citation counts of retracted articles increased. The growing number of retracted articles and frequent citations pose potential dangers from a scientific perspective, as citing retracted articles damages scientific integrity. The study underscores the importance of understanding the reasons for retracted articles and preventing the spread of such incidents in emergency medicine literature. The results, analyzed within various variables, indicate the need for further research and solutions, guiding future research efforts and contributing to the literature.

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.

Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality

The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria in order to judge whether retraction notices are easily and freely accessible, informative, and transparent. We mined the Retraction Watch database and evaluated a total of 768 retraction notices from two publishers (Springer and Wiley) over three years (2010, 2015, and 2020). Per our rubric, both publishers tended to score higher on measures of openness/availability, accessibility, and clarity as to why a paper was retracted than they did in: acknowledging institutional investigations; confirming whether there was consensus among authors; and specifying which parts of any given paper warranted retraction. Springer retraction notices appeared to improve over time with respect to the rubric's seven criteria. We observed some discrepancies among raters, indicating the difficulty in developing a robust objective rubric for evaluating retraction notices.

Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health

OBJECTIVES

Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices

A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.

Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal

The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context.

Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment

The integrity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) has become a concern owing to a recent rise in the number of retractions and the repercussions this has for evidence-based patient care. However, there is little research on the subject of RCT integrity assessment. Recent literature reviews have revealed that journals' authors' instructions concerning integrity and their investigation policies concerning allegations of misconduct are heterogeneous. The judicious use of integrity tests applied to RCT manuscripts is hampered by an absence of data concerning misconduct prevalence (pre-test probability), a failure to evaluate test performance (validity) and a lack of consensus over a gold standard (against which test accuracy can be evaluated). These deficiencies hinder the post-publication correction of RCT records, the integrity evaluations in systematic reviews of RCTs and the prospective application of preventive solutions in RCT peer-review and preprint assessment. Dealing with the current controversy about trustworthiness of RCT evidence requires a strong investment in research, reform and education concerning research integrity. The purpose of this review article is to highlight the current limitations in dealing with trial integrity-related concerns and to propose solutions to some of these issues.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

RESULTS

Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence

OBJECTIVES

Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers.

METHODS

The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields.

RESULTS

The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper.

CONCLUSIONS

This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

BACKGROUND

Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices.

RESULTS

A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments

Flaws in experimental statistics are a major contributor to the poor reproducibility of animal experiments. Informed decisions about whether conclusions are justified requires clear reporting of experimental data and the statistical methods used to analyse them. When data are misinterpreted, manipulated or concealed to generate publications, it creates an illusion that chance observations are robust data which confirm the hypotheses presented. Attempts to reproduce and advance such observations can propagate large areas of irreproducible science. This hinders scientific progress, erodes public support for research, damages reputations and wastes resources. This review analyses and explains recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments.

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.

PARTICIPANTS

All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.

RESULTS

1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.

CONCLUSIONS

Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.

[The Research Integrity Office in Spain. A pending issue]

In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.

Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study

Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008-2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018-2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just ∼61% in 2008-2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018-2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008-2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.

ANALYSIS OF RETRACTED PUBLICATIONS FROM KAZAKHSTAN

Introduction: Retraction is a mechanism to prevent the dissemination of erroneous, misleading, or biased data and information. Various factors can cause retraction. In this article, we focused on Kazakhstan data and aimed to present an analysis of retracted publications from Kazakhstan. Methods: Data for this descriptive cross-sectional article were obtained from the 'Retraction Watch’ database without time restriction. Among the country selections, 'Kazakhstan,' 'Tajikistan,' 'Uzbekistan,' 'Kyrgyzstan,' and 'Turkmenistan' were chosen, and the number of retracted articles was recorded. For detailed analysis, Kazakhstan data were focused on and further analyses were performed on Kazakhstan data. Article title, authors, time interval (in days) from publication to retraction, date of retraction, source of publication, subject area of publication, publication type, and retraction reason were recorded in an Excel file. Results: The number of retracted publications was detected as 64 from Kazakhstan, 49 from Tajikistan, 17 from Uzbekistan, 12 from Kyrgyzstan, and 1 from Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan data were as follows: The median time interval between publication date and retraction date was 475 (46 - 2074) days. Retraction reasons were listed as: Plagiarism (n = 22), peer review issues (n = 21), duplication (n = 11), author disagreements and conflict (n = 5), error (n = 5), fraud (n = 2), ethical issues ( n = 1), publication issues (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). The three areas with the most retracted articles were engineering (n = 22), education (n = 21), and technology (n = 12). Conclusion: Kazakhstan was first among the five Central Asian countries in terms of the number of retracted publications. Plagiarism, peer review issues, and duplication were at the forefront of the retraction reasons. There is a need for approaches to increase the knowledge of researchers in Kazakhstan about the retraction reasons and ethical research conditions.

Randomised trials in maternal and perinatal health in low and middle-income countries from 2010 to 2019: a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To identify and map all trials in maternal health conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, to identify geographical and thematic trends, as well as comparing to global causes of maternal death and preidentified priority areas.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Extracted data included location, study characteristics and whether trials corresponded to causes of mortality and identified research priority topics.

RESULTS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, a combined registry of trials from multiple sources. Our search identified 7269 articles, 874 of which were included for analysis. Between 2010 and 2019, maternal health trials conducted in LMICs more than doubled (50-114). Trials were conducted in 61 countries-231 trials (26.4%) were conducted in Iran. Only 225 trials (25.7%) were aligned with a cause of maternal mortality. Within these trials, pre-existing medical conditions, embolism, obstructed labour and sepsis were all under-represented when compared with number of maternal deaths globally. Large numbers of studies were conducted on priority topics such as labour and delivery, obstetric haemorrhage and antenatal care. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes and health systems and policy-despite being high-priority topics-had relatively few trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite trials conducted in LMICs increasing from 2010 to 2019, there were significant gaps in geographical distribution, alignment with causes of maternal mortality and known research priority topics. The research gaps identified provide guidance and insight for future research conduct in low-resource settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/QUJP5.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey.

METHODS

In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73-144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period.

CONCLUSION

The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

Citation of retracted research: a case-controlled, ten-year follow-up scientometric analysis of Scott S. Reuben’s malpractice

A major problem in scientific literature is the citation of retracted research. Until now, no long-term follow-up of the course of citations of such articles has been published. In the present study, we determined the development of citations of retracted articles based on the case of anaesthesiologist and pain researcher Scott S. Reuben, over a period of 10 years and compared them to matched controls. We screened four databases to find retracted publications by Scott S. Ruben and reviewed full publications for indications of retraction status. To obtain a case-controlled analysis, all Reuben’s retracted articles were compared with the respective citations of the preceeding and subsequent neighbouring articles within the same journal. There were 420 citations between 2009 and 2019, of which only 40% indicated the publication being retracted. Over a 10-year period, an increasing linear trend is observed in citations of retracted articles by Scott S. Ruben that are not reported as retracted (R2 = 0.3647). Reuben’s retracted articles were cited 92% more often than the neighbouring non-retracted articles. This study highlights a major scientific problem. Invented or falsified data are still being cited after more than a decade, leading to a distortion of the evidence and scientometric parameters.

Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing

Faculty Opinions has provided recommendations of important biomedical publications by domain experts (FMs) since 2001. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) identify the characteristics of the expert-recommended articles that were subsequently retracted and (2) investigate what happened after retraction. We examined a set of 232 recommended, later retracted or corrected articles. These articles were classified as New Finding (43%), Interesting Hypothesis (16%), and so on. More than 71% of the articles acknowledged funding support; the National Institutes of Health, USA (NIH) was a top funder (64%). The top reasons for retractions were Errors of various types (28%); Falsification/fabrication of data, image, or results (20%); Unreliable data, image, or results (16%); and Results not reproducible (16%). Retractions took from less than 2 months to more than 15 years. Only 15% of recommendations were withdrawn either after dissents were made by other FMs or after retractions. Most of the retracted articles continue to be cited post-retraction, especially those published in Nature, Science, and Cell. Significant positive correlations were observed between post-retraction citations and pre-retraction citations, between post-retraction citations and peak citations, and between post-retraction citations and the post-retraction citing span. A significant negative correlation was also observed between the post-retraction citing span and years taken to reach peak citations. Literature recommendation systems need to update the changing status of the recommended articles in a timely manner; invite the recommending experts to update their recommendations; and provide a personalised mechanism to alert users who have accessed the recommended articles on their subsequent retractions, concerns, or corrections.

Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the publishing of a quantity of scientific research. In less than a year, a record of 200,000 scientific articles have been published on COVID-19. Publishing such a massive quantity of scientific research has instigated publishers to accelerate the review process. An upsurge in the publication rate has resulted in an increase in the retraction rate. This paper focuses on the COVID-19 studies originating across the world from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2021. The data for this study were mined from http://retractiondatabase.org/. A total of 157 withdrawn articles on COVID-19 were retracted, and it was found that the United States of America contributed 31 (19.75%) retracted articles. Also, 16 (51.61%) of the retracted papers from the United States of America emerge in journals having an Impact Factor (IF). The study presents that 31 (19.75%) retracted articles were worked together by two authors, 26 (16.56%) with one author, and 22 (14.01%) by five authors. Furthermore, Elsevier publishers have the highest retraction rate with 80 (50.96%). Half (50%) of the articles were retracted with "no information" as a reason for retraction. Other reasons for retraction include concern/issues about data, duplication, journal error, lack of approval from a third party, plagiarism, etc.

Characteristics of retracted editorial articles in the biomedical literature

The main purpose of this short communication is to identify and analyze retracted editorials in the biomedical literature. Twenty-five of the 33 editorials are chosen for further analysis. All of the editorials were published as commentaries and concise reviews between 1998 and 2021. Due to plagiarism and data-related issues, the majority of the editorial articles were retracted. Alarmingly, one-fifth of the editorials were funded by external agencies, with the USA leading the list of retracted editorials. The average time between the publication of the editorials and their retraction is 2.48 years, and two editorials were retracted with the longest durations; both were written by the same author. The conclusion is that, at the very least, editorial articles should be devoid of research/scientific misconduct.

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

The growing rate of retraction of scientific publications has attracted much attention within the academic community, but there is little knowledge about the nature of such retractions in schizophrenia-related research. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retractions of schizophrenia-related publications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Web of Science was searched for eligible studies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of the retractions using R software and Excel 2019. Content analysis was conducted to examine the essential components of retraction notices.

RESULTS

A total of 36 retracted publications with 415 citations were identified from 1997 to 2021, of which, 83.3% occurred in the last decade. The overall retraction rate was 0.19%, with most of them (29; 80.56%) from the United Kingdom. The retractions were published in 33 journals, and the 2020 IFs ranged between 0.17 and 49.96 (Median = 3.93). The retractions involved 21 research areas, particularly in Psychiatry (19; 52.78%), Neurosciences and Neurology (10; 27.78%), and Psychology (7; 19.44%). Data issues (17; 42.22%), administrative errors of the publishers (5; 13.89%), and study design (4; 11.11%) were the top three reasons for retractions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an insight into retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction.

Effectiveness of data auditing as a tool to reinforce good research data management (RDM) practice: a Singapore study

Background

Institutions, funding agencies and publishers are placing increasing emphasis on good research data management (RDM). RDM lapses in medical science can result in questionable data and cause the public’s confidence in the scientific community to crumble. A fledgling medical school in a young university in Singapore has mandated every funded research project to have a data management plan (DMP). However, researchers’ adherence to their DMPs was unknown until the school embarked on routine data auditing. We hypothesize that research data auditing improves RDM awareness, compliance and reception in the school.

Methods

We conducted surveys with research PIs and researchers before and after data auditing to evaluate differences in self-reported RDM awareness, compliance and reception. As it is mandatory to deposit research data in a central data repository system in the school, we tracked data deposition by each laboratory from 2 weeks before to 3 months after data auditing as a marker of actual RDM compliance.

Results

Research data auditing had an overall positive effect on self-reported RDM awareness, compliance and reception for both research PIs and researchers. Research PIs agreed more that RDM was important to scientific reproducibility, were more aware of proper RDM, had higher RDM strength in their laboratories and were more compliant with the DMP. Both research PIs and researchers believed data auditing helped them to be more compliant with data deposition in the repository. However, data auditing had no significant impact on laboratories’ data deposition rates over time, which could be due to the short sampling period.

Conclusions

Research PIs and researchers generally felt that data auditing was effective in improving RDM practices. It helped to evaluate their RDM practices objectively, propose corrective actions for RDM lapses and spread awareness of the university’s data management policies. Our findings corroborated other studies in medical research, geosciences, engineering and ethics that data auditing promotes good RDM practices. Hence, we recommend research institutions worldwide to adopt data auditing as a tool to reinforce research integrity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00662-y.

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Purpose

Authorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.

Design/methodology/approach

To appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.

Findings

Academic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.

Originality/value

Within the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

The black crow of science and its impact: analyzing Sci-Hub use with Google Trends

Purpose

In 2016, Bohannon published an article analyzing the download rate of the top ten countries using the illegal Sci-Hub website. Four years later, this study approaches the search behavior of these ten countries as they query about Sci-Hub in Google's search engine, the world's most widely used search engine. The authors also tracked the possible consequences of using Sci-Hub, such as plagiarism.

Design/methodology/approach

The search terms “Sci-Hub”, “Plagiarism” and “Plagiarism Checker” were explored with Google Trends. The queries were performed globally and individually for the ten target countries, all categories and web searches. The time range was limited between 1/1/2016 (after the date of publication of Bohannon's work) and 29/03/2020. Data were extracted from Google Trends and the findings were mapped.

Findings

Searching for the word Sci-Hub on Google has increased nearly eightfold worldwide in the last four years, with China, Ethiopia and Tunisia having the most searches. Sci-Hub's search trends increased for most of the T10C, with Brazil and Iran having the highest and lowest average searches, respectively.

Originality/value

Access to the research literature is required to the progress of research, but it should not be obtained illegally. Given the increasing incidence of these problems in countries at any level of development, it is important to pay attention to ethics education in research and establish ethics committees. A comprehensive review of the research process is required to reduce the urge to circumvent copyright laws and includes training and educating research stakeholders in copyright literacy. To address these goals, national and international seriousness and enthusiasm are essential.

Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil

Abstract Over the years, cases of retractions due to unintentional errors or research misconduct have been the subject of discussion, being indispensable to avoid the propagation of misleading information. To understand this matter in the Brazilian scenario, this study characterizes the retractions of authorship or co-authorship of Brazilian researchers between 2002 and 2019, their related consequences and impacts on scientific activity. With a data collection performed at the Retraction Watch database, we analyzed quantitative aspects of the reasons for retractions, stratification by areas of knowledge, the time between publication and retraction, the association of journals and impact factor, authors’ recidivism, the institutional collaboration between Brazilian institutions and countries and funding sources. The results of the analysis of 162 retractions indicate the prevalence of plagiarism (12.2%), the incidence of retracted articles in the Bioscience area (28.1%), in journals with Impact Factors between 2 and 5 (38.0%), and with 2 to 4 authors (38.8%). The occurrences and recurrences of retractions due to misconduct have an impact not only the author’s professional activity but science. Thus, this article emphasizes the importance of prompt retraction, as well as of the need to improve mechanisms to prevent these articles from being published from the start.

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Background

Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period.

Methods

Quasiexperimental, pre–post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed.

Results

There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.

Insight into modern-day plagiarism: The science of pseudo research

In today's world, when there is a rapid surge of biomedical publications, maintaining research integrity of articles is of prime importance. It is expected that the submitted work is genuine of submitting authors’. Ease in the availability of these digitally published biomedical papers and pressure to publish for academic and professional advancement had resulted in numerous novice scientists and students falling into unethical practice of plagiarizing others’ work to get the job done quickly. Plagiarists are continuously in search of finding new and easy ways to plagiarize someone else's work, currently seen as different forms of plagiarism. Hence, this narrative review intends to help young and upcoming researchers to understand plagiarism, its type, the reason for plagiarists getting involved in that, and possible ways to detect and prevent it.

A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences

BACKGROUND

In the new era of publication, scientific misconduct has become a focus of concern including extreme variability of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, authorship issues, peer review manipulation, etc. Along with, overarching theme of "retraction" and "predatory journals" have emphasized the importance of studying related infrastructures.

METHODS

Information used in this review was provided through accessing various databases as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Nature Index, Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. Original researches, expert opinions, comments, letters, editorials, books mostly published between 2010 and 2020 were gathered and categorized into three sections of "Common types of misconduct"," Reasons behind scientific misconduct" and "Consequences". Within each part, remarkable examples from the past 10 years cited in Retraction Watch are indicated. At last, possible solution on combating misconduct are suggested.

RESULTS

The number of publications are on the dramatic rise fostering a competition under which scholars are pushed to publish more. Consequently, due to several reasons including poor linguistic and illustration skills, not adequate evaluation, limited experience, etc. researchers might tend toward misbehavior endangering the health facts and ultimately, eroding country, journal/publisher, and perpetrator's creditability. The reported incident seems to be enhanced by the emergence of predatory with publishing about 8 times more papers in 2014 than which is in 2010. So that today, 65.3% of paper retraction is solely attributing to misconduct, with plagiarism at the forefront. As well, authorship issues and peer-review manipulation are found to have significant contribution besides further types of misconduct in this duration.

CONCLUSION

Given the expansion of the academic competitive environment and with the increase in research misconduct, the role of any regulatory sector, including universities, journals/publishers, government, etc. in preventing this phenomenon must be fully focused and fundamental alternation should be implemented in this regard.

Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the methodology of bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: An all-inclusive analysis of the most bibliometrically highlighted scientific contributions regarding the cornerstones of clinical embryology was performed employing the Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases, between 1978–2018. An analysis of the number of publications, respective citations and h-index, g-index, along with m-quotient is presented. The top 30 contributing authors for each distinctive area of research are listed. An attempt at visualizing the yearly published articles, clusters, and collaborations of authors, along with the geographic origin of publications, is also presented. Results: Combining all searches and keywords yielded 54,522 results. In the Scopus database, employing the keyword “In Vitro Fertilization” yielded 41,292 results. The publications of the top five authors in each research field were analytically presented and compared to the total number of publications for each respective field. The research field of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/Screening/Testing was allocated the highest percentage of publications produced by the top five authors. Regarding journal bibliometrics, based on the year 2017 metrics, there are only 29 journals according to WoS that refer to “Reproductive Biology”, ranking it 187th among 235 disciplines. The USA produced the highest number of publications (12,537). Conclusion: Results indicate an explosion of interest published in the literature regarding the field of clinical embryology. Further analysis on collaborations and the trends involved should be of added value as productivity between countries varies significantly. This may guide researchers, in vitro fertilization professionals, and prospective authors during literature search, while proving useful regarding manuscript design and concurring on keywords and abstract content.

A comparative analysis of retracted papers in Health Sciences from China and India

Academics are expected to publish their research work. Hence, during the past few years, the scientific community has witnessed an ever-increasing growth and output in scientific papers. However, a large number of authors have violated ethical norms of research leading to retractions of their research works as well. The article focuses on the scientific fraud emanating from China and India in Health Sciences for a period of three years i.e. 2015 to 2018. The present data were extracted from http://retractiondatabase.org/using a search filter term "Research Articles OR Articles in Press" on the subject category of Health Sciences (HSC). A total of 318 retracted papers were retrieved and the result of the study indicated that majority (268 items) of the retracted papers in Health Science originated from China, whereas just 50 retracted papers originated from India as on 21-02-2019. While analyzing the data, 26 redundant articles from China have been removed that received retraction notices. Further, the results of the study suggest that there are several factors associated with retraction of scientific papers, which include unreliable results, duplication of results, plagiarism, forged authorship, error in the text, error in data and so on.

Can the similarity index predict the causes of retractions in high-impact anesthesia journals? A bibliometric analysis

Background:

The overall similarity index (OSI) and highest similarity scores (HSSs) from a single source might help to predict the potential reasons for the retraction from the anesthesia journals.

Methods:

Retracted publications, from five highest impact anesthesia journals, were retrieved from the MEDLINE and journal archives and analyzed using a plagiarism detection software (iThenticate) and manually verified for citation characteristics, OSI, HSS, and the presence, extent, and location of the duplicate text. The validity of the OSI including and excluding quotations and references and the HSS in predicting the potential reasons for retraction were tested using the receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results:

Of the total 138 retracted original and corresponding articles identified, 131 articles were analyzed. Most of them had the HSS more than 40% arising from a single source. Extensive degree of plagiarism (OSI score >35%) was identified through the main text of all analyzed retracted articles. The areas under the curves indicate that the OSI including and excluding quotations and bibliography and the HSS had reasonable ability to predict plagiarism and fabrication with a perfect sensitivity rate and low specificity but were weaker at distinguishing ethical misconduct or inconsistent or erroneous contents.

Conclusions:

The study highlights the presence of significant plagiarism in the retracted anesthesia publications irrespective to the reasons for retraction. The high OSI and the HSS could be useful tools to identify the potential manuscripts with high risks for plagiarism and fabrication.

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.