1
|
Qi Q, Huang J, Wu Y, Pan Y, Zhuang J, Yang X. Recent trends: Retractions of articles in the oncology field. Heliyon 2024; 10:e33007. [PMID: 38984306 PMCID: PMC11231537 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2024] [Revised: 06/02/2024] [Accepted: 06/12/2024] [Indexed: 07/11/2024] Open
Abstract
Background In recent years, there has been a surge in media reports on articles being retracted after publication. This issue has gained significant attention, particularly due to the consecutive large-scale retractions carried out by renowned international publishers, which have aroused widespread concern in the society. Objective To analyze the data of retracted articles and retraction trends. Methods The publications were searched through Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database and imported into CiteSpace in plain text format, and visual analysis of countries, institutions, keywords, and subject areas were performed to reveal the trends of retracted articles and the worst areas of retraction. Results From 1990 to 2022, 21,568 retracted articles were retrieved, among which the number of retracted articles increased year by year. China is the country with the highest number of retracted articles; Islamic Azad University is the institution with the highest number of retracted articles. In the analysis of all retracted articles across different subject areas, the number of retracted articles in the field of oncology was the highest; In the keyword cluster analysis of retracted articles within the field of oncology, the most prominent category of retracted articles were related to pancreatic cancer. Conclusions Scientific and systematic analysis of retracted articles is conducive to improving the quality of papers, raising the level of human research, and cleaning up the research environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Quan Qi
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Jiaqun Huang
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Yinhang Wu
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Yuefen Pan
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Jing Zhuang
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Xi Yang
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Zhejiang Province, China
- Huzhou Central Hospital, Fifth School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, China
- Key Laboratory of Multiomics Research and Clinical Transformation of Digestive Cancer of Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
Minetto S, Zanirato M, Makieva S, Marzanati D, Esposito S, Pisaturo V, Costa M, Candiani M, Papaleo E, Alteri A. Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1210951. [PMID: 37588117 PMCID: PMC10427242 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1210951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified "article duplication," "plagiarism," and "fabricated results" as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included. Results The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45-0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16-0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with "plagiarism" being the most common reason for retraction, followed by "duplicate publication." Discussion The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabrina Minetto
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Mara Zanirato
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Sofia Makieva
- Kinderwunschzentrum, Klinik für Reproduktions-Endokrinologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Daria Marzanati
- Reproductive Sciences Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Esposito
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Valerio Pisaturo
- Reproductive Medicine Department, International Evangelical Hospital, Genoa, Italy
| | - Mauro Costa
- Reproductive Medicine Department, International Evangelical Hospital, Genoa, Italy
| | - Massimo Candiani
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Papaleo
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandra Alteri
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Robert C, Wilson CS. Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls. FRONTIERS IN PAIN RESEARCH 2023; 4:1071453. [PMID: 36937565 PMCID: PMC10017016 DOI: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1071453] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2022] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/05/2023] Open
Abstract
During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Concepción Shimizu Wilson
- School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions. PUBLICATIONS 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/publications10020018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the business model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze PubMed-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.
Collapse
|
6
|
Gholampour B, Gholampour S, Noruzi A, Arsenault C, Haertlé T, Saboury AA. Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04305-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
7
|
Wang P, Su J. Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing. J Inf Sci 2022. [DOI: 10.1177/01655515221074329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peiling Wang
- School of Information Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
| | - Jing Su
- Center for Knowledge Management, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hsiao TK, Schneider J. Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES 2022; 2:1144-1169. [PMID: 36186715 PMCID: PMC9520488 DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
We present the first database-wide study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., preretraction and postretraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960-2020). Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. In these 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tzu-Kun Hsiao
- School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, USA
| | - Jodi Schneider
- School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Issues and challenges to reproducibility of cancer research: a commentary. Future Oncol 2022; 18:1417-1422. [DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|
10
|
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
|
11
|
Audisio K, Robinson NB, Soletti GJ, Cancelli G, Dimagli A, Spadaccio C, Olaria RP, Chadow D, Rahouma M, Demetres M, Tam DY, Benedetto U, Girardi LN, Kurlansky P, Fremes SE, Gaudino M. A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature. Int J Cardiol 2021; 349:109-114. [PMID: 34921899 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.12.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2021] [Revised: 12/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retractions of erroneous and fraudulent papers from the biomedical literature continue to be a major concern. The aim of this analysis is to summarize trends of retractions in the cardiovascular literature over the past four decades. METHODS A review of the Retraction Watch database for retracted articles published between 1978 and 2020 in the cardiovascular literature was performed. Retractions with the term "medicine" in the subject code were selected. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and only retractions of articles in cardiovascular medicine and surgery were included. RESULTS 459 retraction notices published in 228 journals were identified. The number of retractions increased with time from 1 in 1991 to 48 at the end of 2019 (P < 0.001). Overall, the yearly percentage of retraction increased during the study period (P < 0.001) but decreased after 2015. China had the highest percentage of retractions when compared to other countries (P < 0.001). The majority of articles were retracted for scientific misconduct (n = 289, 63.0%); retractions due to scientific misconduct increased significantly over the study period (P = 0.04) but decreased after 2015. The median time from publication to retraction was 1.4 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.6-3.8) and decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001). The median number of citations of retracted articles was 8.0. CONCLUSIONS The number of retractions and the yearly percentage of retraction in the cardiovascular literature increased significantly during the study period, although a decrease was seen after 2015. Scientific misconduct represents the most common reason for retraction, although a reduction has been observed in the last five years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katia Audisio
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - N Bryce Robinson
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Giovanni J Soletti
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Gianmarco Cancelli
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | - David Chadow
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mohamed Rahouma
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michelle Demetres
- Samuel J. Wood Library and C. V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Derrick Y Tam
- Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Leonard N Girardi
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Paul Kurlansky
- Division of Cardiac Surgery, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Stephen E Fremes
- Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mario Gaudino
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Shi J, Du X, Cavagnaro MJ, Li N. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of the Top-Cited Publications in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Front Neurol 2021; 12:687796. [PMID: 34177789 PMCID: PMC8220220 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.687796] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: For measuring their impact in scientific research, the citation count of the publications is used in the bibliometric analysis, though still in the bibliometric analysis, there is no comprehensive summary of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research. This article intends to provide the physicians and the neuroscientists with a reference guide to assess the most influential publications written on this subject through a macroscopic view of the research activities on mTBI. Methods: The database of the Web of Science was used to compile the 100 top-ranking publications on mTBI. The selected publications were evaluated on the basis of the several categorizations including the type of the publications, number of citations, country of origin, and year of publication. Results: Between 1946 and 2020, the 13,040 publications that were published were included in the database. The least cited publications received 274 citations, while the most cited received 1,748. Altogether, 71 publications were from the USA while 29 were from other countries. Among all the institutions, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center led the list with six publications. Around 100 papers, mostly on the clinical studies in the categories of neurology and neurosciences, were published in 54 different journals. Conclusions: This study provides both a transverse section summary and historical retrospect for the clinical advances of mTBI, and the publications of important observations that contributed a significant impact on the treatment and prevention of mTBI had been identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jian Shi
- Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Xianping Du
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, United States
| | | | - Na Li
- Department of Radiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
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
|
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
|
Baldock C, Basran PS, Zaidi H. An increase in retractions of research publications is an issue for Medical Physics. Med Phys 2020; 48:927-930. [PMID: 33098310 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Revised: 10/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Clive Baldock
- Research and Innovation Division, University of Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | - Parminder S Basran
- Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Jenkins R, Gautier L. Welcome to the 16th volume of Future Oncology. Future Oncol 2019; 16:4247-4250. [PMID: 31797678 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2019-0741] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Jenkins
- Future Science Group, Unitec House, 2 Albert Place, London N3 1QB, UK
| | - Louis Gautier
- Future Science Group, Unitec House, 2 Albert Place, London N3 1QB, UK
| |
Collapse
|