1
|
Nicoll LH, Carter-Templeton H, Oermann MH, Bailey HE, Owens JK, Wrigley J, Ledbetter LS. An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature. J Nurs Scholarsh 2024; 56:478-485. [PMID: 38124265 DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN This was an exploratory study. METHODS A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Hannah E Bailey
- John Chambers College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
| | - Jacqueline K Owens
- Dwight Schar College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, USA
| | - Jordan Wrigley
- Future of Privacy Forum, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Leila S Ledbetter
- Research and Education Librarian, Duke University Medical Center Library, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yang W, Sun N, Song H. Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022. J Cancer Res Ther 2024; 20:592-598. [PMID: 38687929 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1627_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. METHODS Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). CONCLUSION In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenyan Yang
- Journal Center, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), China
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Charbonneau DH, Ketcheson LR. Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct. Health Info Libr J 2024; 41:64-75. [PMID: 37076127 DOI: 10.1111/hir.12482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/29/2023] [Indexed: 04/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles. METHODS We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch). RESULTS A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months. DISCUSSION The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%). CONCLUSION These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Leah R Ketcheson
- Health and Physical Education Teaching (H-PET), Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Panahi S, Soleimanpour S. The landscape of the characteristics, citations, scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in hematology. Account Res 2023; 30:363-378. [PMID: 34612782 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1990049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Retraction is a mechanism for eliminating and correcting serious problems in the scientific literature and increasing awareness among members of the scientific community about unreliable literature. The objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics and reasons for retraction, analyze citations, and describe the scientific, altmetrics, and technological impacts of hematology retracted papers. Retracted papers were searched using the hematology category of the Web of Science database. The search yielded 101 retracted papers in WoS. Statistics methods such as frequency, mean, interquartile range (IQR), and Pearson's Correlation were used for data analysis. The findings showed the retracted papers were published in 28 different hematology journals. The majority of retracted documents were in Article type (n = 81). The mean time interval of the retracted papers from the first publication to retraction was 50.83 months. The largest number of retracted papers belonged to the United States (n = 46). The most frequently reported reason for retraction was misconduct (n = 55). The findings of this study provide a landscape into the characteristics and citations of retracted papers before and after retraction in addition to the scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of hematology retracted papers in the scientific community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sirous Panahi
- Department of Medical Library and Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Samira Soleimanpour
- Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Alexander R, Peterson CJ, Yang S, Nugent K. Article retraction rates in selected MeSH term categories in PubMed published between 2010 and 2020. Account Res 2023:1-14. [PMID: 37859455 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2272246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2023] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Academic article retractions occur across all disciplines, though few studies have examined the association between research topics and retraction rates. OBJECTIVES We assessed and compared the rate of retraction across several important clinical research topics. METHODS Information about the number of publications, the number of retractions, the retraction rate, and the time to retraction was collected for articles identified by 15 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. These articles were published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The searches took place between 18 September 2021 and 24 October 2021. The MeSH terms were selected based on our clinical experience with the expectation that there will be multiple publications during the timeframe to use for the searches. Additional topics were selected based on the frequency of controversy in the public media and were identified by the Altmetric Top 100 report. RESULTS The mean number of publications for all categories was 181,975 ± 332,245; the median number of publications was 67,991 [Q1, Q3; 31951.5, 138,981.5]. The mean number of retractions was 100.3 ± 251.3, and the median number of retractions was 22 [Q1, Q3; 6.5, 53]. The mean time to retraction ranged from 114 days to 1,409.5 days; the median was 857.3 days [Q1, Q3; 684.7, 1098.6], depending on the topic. The various MeSH term categories used in this study had significant differences in retraction rate and time to retraction. The "Neoplasms" category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications). DISCUSSION All PubMed categories analyzed in this study had retracted articles. The median time to retraction was 857 days. The long delays in some categories could contribute to potentially misleading information which might have adverse effects on clinical decisions in patient care and on research design. CONCLUSION Rate of retraction varies across research topics and further studies are needed to explore this relationship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Alexander
- Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
| | | | - Shengping Yang
- Department of Biostatistics, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
| | - Kenneth Nugent
- Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Christopher MM. Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health. BMC Vet Res 2022; 18:73. [PMID: 35180878 PMCID: PMC8855588 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Retractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded. Results Two-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted. Conclusions The rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary M Christopher
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, 4206 VetMed 3A, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Xu S(B, Hu G. Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu
- School of Foreign Studies Huanggang Normal University Huanggang Hubei China
- Department of English and Communication The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hunghom Hong Kong
| | - Guangwei Hu
- Department of English and Communication The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hunghom Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chen P, Li XH, Su Z, Tang YL, Ma Y, Ng CH, Xiang YT. Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis. Front Psychiatry 2022; 13:937330. [PMID: 35978846 PMCID: PMC9376617 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.937330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pan Chen
- Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Medicinal Administration, Institute of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China.,Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China.,Centre for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China
| | - Xiao-Hong Li
- The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhaohui Su
- School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yi-Lang Tang
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.,Mental Health Service Line, Atlanta Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Decatur, GA, United States
| | - Yi Ma
- Outpatient Department, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Chee H Ng
- Department of Psychiatry, The Melbourne Clinic and St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Richmond, VIC, Australia
| | - Yu-Tao Xiang
- Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Medicinal Administration, Institute of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China.,Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China.,Centre for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Shi Q, Wang Z, Zhou Q, Hou R, Gao X, He S, Zhao S, Ma Y, Zhang X, Guan Q, Chen Y. More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 139:57-67. [PMID: 34186193 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2020] [Revised: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 06/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING MEDLINE, Embase, Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar were systematically searched to find all retracted non-Cochrane SRs. RESULTS Of 159 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020, more than 70% were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14 months, and SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than honest error. CONCLUSION The total number of retracted SRs is increasing worldwide, in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the SR is retracted more than a year after publication. Better systems of ethical oversight and culture to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance are needed, and authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qianling Shi
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Zijun Wang
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Qi Zhou
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Ruizhen Hou
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Xia Gao
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Shaoe He
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Siya Zhao
- School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Yanfang Ma
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Xianzhuo Zhang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Quanlin Guan
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Department of Oncology Surgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
| | - Yaolong Chen
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Lanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou 730000, China; WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, China; Guideline International Network Asia, Lanzhou 730000, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou 730000, China.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Shah TA, Gul S, Bashir S, Ahmad S, Huertas A, Oliveira A, Gulzar F, Najar AH, Chakraborty K. Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03990-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
11
|
Elango B. Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics 2021; 126:3965-3981. [PMID: 33716353 PMCID: PMC7937359 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03895-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2020] [Accepted: 02/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to identify retracted articles in the biomedical literature (co) authored by Indian authors and to examine the features of retracted articles. The PubMed database was searched to find the retracted articles in order to reach the goal. The search yielded 508 records and retrieved for the detailed analysis of: authorships and collaboration type, funding information, who retracts? journals and impact factors, and reasons for retraction. The results show that most of the biomedical articles retracted were published after 2010 and common reasons are plagiarism and fake data for retraction. More than half of the retracted articles were co-authored within the institutions and there is no repeat offender. 25% of retracted articles were published in the top 15 journals and 33% were published in the non-impact factor journals. Average time from publication to retraction is calculated to 2.86 years and retractions due to fake data takes longest period among the reasons. Majority of the funded research was retracted due to fake data whereas it is plagiarism for non-funded.
Collapse
|
12
|
SANTOS-D’AMORIM K, CORREIA AEGC, MIRANDA MKFDO, SANTA-CRUZ P. Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil. TRANSINFORMACAO 2021. [DOI: 10.1590/2318-0889202133e210001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
13
|
Madhugiri VS, Nagella AB, Uppar AM. An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2021; 163:19-30. [PMID: 33064200 PMCID: PMC7562691 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2020] [Accepted: 10/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. METHODS Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed. RESULTS A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%. CONCLUSIONS The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Venkatesh S Madhugiri
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, 560029, India.
| | - Amrutha Bindu Nagella
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore, 560001, India
| | - Alok Mohan Uppar
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, 560029, India
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Bordino M, Ravizzotti E, Vercelli S. Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis. Arch Physiother 2020; 10:21. [PMID: 33292803 PMCID: PMC7706289 DOI: 10.1186/s40945-020-00092-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM The volume of withdrawn publications in scholarly disciplines has grown steadily, but there is little awareness about this issue in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to analyze the extent of retracted articles pertaining to rehabilitation. METHODS Retracted articles were searched in 4 different bibliographic databases from their inception to April 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, WikiLetters and Retraction Watch. Three independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the retrieved articles to the rehabilitation area. RESULTS Of 280 rehabilitation-related publications retracted between 1984 and 2020, 83 (29.6%) were published in 55 full open access journals and 197 (70.4%) were published in 147 traditional, non-open access or hybrid journals. In the last 10 years (2009-2018) there was a significant steady increase in both the total number of retractions (p < 0.005; r = 0.856; R2 = 0.733) and retraction rate per year (p < 0.05; r = 0.751; R2 = 0.564). However, the number of retractions represents a very small percentage (~ 0.1%) of the overall volume of publications in rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that the number of retracted articles in rehabilitation is increasing, although the phenomenon is still limited. However, the true prevalence of misconduct may go unnoticed due to the large number of low-quality journals not indexed in the searched databases. Physiotherapists should be aware of the danger of misleading information originating from withdrawn publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elisa Ravizzotti
- Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Vercelli
- Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Institute of Veruno, IRCCS, Gattico-Veruno (NO), Italy
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nagella AB, Madhugiri VS. Journal Retraction Rates and Citation Metrics: An Ouroboric Association? Cureus 2020; 12:e11542. [PMID: 33365211 PMCID: PMC7748576 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.11542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Retraction of published papers has a far-reaching impact on the scientific world, especially if the retracted papers were published in high-impact journals. Although it has been noted that the retraction rates of journals correlated with their citation metrics, no conclusive data were available for most clinical specialties. In this study, we determined the retraction rate for anesthesia and two comparison groups (neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals). We then studied the correlation of the retraction rate with citation metrics. Methods We generated a list of all anesthesia journals that were indexed in the National Library of Medicine database. We obtained the number of papers published in each journal as well as the number of papers retracted from each. We also collated the Impact Factor® and H-index of each journal. The same methodology was followed for neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals. We then studied the correlations between the retraction rate and citation metrics of each journal. Results The retraction index was 2.59 for anesthesiology, 0.66 for neurosurgery and 0.75 for the high-impact clinical journals group. The retraction rate did not correlate with the citation metrics. However, the number of papers published in each journal and the absolute number of retractions showed a positive correlation with the citation metrics. The H-index showed stronger correlations with these parameters than the Impact factor. Conclusions The number of retractions increased in proportion to both the number of papers published in a journal and the citation metrics of that journal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amrutha B Nagella
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore, IND
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Retractions in Rehabilitation and Sport Sciences Journals: A Systematic Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2020; 101:1980-1990. [DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Revised: 02/03/2020] [Accepted: 03/21/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
|
17
|
Gray R, Bressington D, Jones M, R Thompson D. What performance metrics should Journal Editors report? Or, is Impact Factor the only metric in town. J Adv Nurs 2020; 77:1-3. [PMID: 32929777 DOI: 10.1111/jan.14540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2020] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Gray
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.,Academic Department of Rural Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Dan Bressington
- School of Nursing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia
| | - Martin Jones
- Academic Department of Rural Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - David R Thompson
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0217918. [PMID: 31194762 PMCID: PMC6563977 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.
Collapse
|
19
|
|
20
|
On the skewness of journal self‐citations and publisher self‐citations: Cues for discussion from a case study. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2019. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
21
|
Riccardi E, Pantano S, Potestio R. Envisioning data sharing for the biocomputing community. Interface Focus 2019; 9:20190005. [PMID: 31065349 DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2019] [Accepted: 03/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The scientific community is facing a revolution in several aspects of its modus operandi, ranging from the way science is done-data production, collection, analysis-to the way it is communicated and made available to the public, be that an academic audience or a general one. These changes have been largely determined by two key players: the big data revolution or, less triumphantly, the impressive increase in computational power and data storage capacity; and the accelerating paradigm switch in science publication, with people and policies increasingly pushing towards open access frameworks. All these factors prompt the undertaking of initiatives oriented to maximize the effectiveness of the computational efforts carried out worldwide. Taking the moves from these observations, we here propose a coordinated initiative, focusing on the computational biophysics and biochemistry community but general and flexible in its defining characteristics, which aims at addressing the growing necessity of collecting, rationalizing, sharing and exploiting the data produced in this scientific environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Riccardi
- Department of Chemistry, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Sergio Pantano
- Institut Pasteur de Montevideo, Mataojo 2020, CP 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay
| | - Raffaello Potestio
- Department of Physics, University of Trento, via Sommarive 14, 38123 Trento, Italy.,INFN-TIFPA, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, 38123 Trento, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
McMaster R. Becoming and being an editor. Nurs Health Sci 2018; 20:409-410. [PMID: 30525295 DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2018] [Revised: 10/22/2018] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Rose McMaster
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Yamaguchi University, Ube, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Gray R, Al-Ghareeb A, McKenna L. Why articles continue to be cited after they have been retracted: An audit of retraction notices. Int J Nurs Stud 2018; 90:11-12. [PMID: 30476725 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2018] [Accepted: 10/05/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Gray
- La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; The University of South Australia, Department of Rural Health, Adelaide, Australia; The University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
| | | | - Lisa McKenna
- La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Federation University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|