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.

PEERING, VIEWING AND REVIEWING: WHAT MAKES A PEER REVIEW GOOD

Peer review is an integral part of an ethical scientific publication process. Though not perfect, it has not been replaceable in the last couple of centuries since the advent of scientific journals. Recent innovations include online anonymized credits for peer review that can be used to augment an academician’s resume. Submissions and retraction are ever growing, increasing the demands from peer reviewers. The rewards may not seem commensurate but any person of science should contribute to peer review as a guardian of science. This short review looks at the ideal peer review along with inherent challenges. It makes suggestions on how novice and intermediate reviewers can improve their contributions as well as introduces various resources relevant for peer review.

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.

MEDICAL HUMANITIES AND ITS ROLE IN SHAPING ETHICS IN MEDICAL GRADUATES

Medicine as a field is unique in the sense that the skill to relate to people weighs heavier on the doctor than the skill required to practise it. Medical humanities is an interdisciplinary field that considers issues of health in the context of history, philosophy, social studies, and anthropology among others, enabling students to change their practice from “looking” to “seeing” the patient as a whole. Unfortunately, current medical training is focused on academics with students left on their own to acquire communication and ancillary skills. In the core medical curriculum, a structured training in medical humanities remains lacking. Herein, we discuss the need, student’s perspectives, and the approach going forward in the inculcation of medical humanities in the medical training with a particular focus on medical ethics.

PUBLONS BASED PROFILING OF TURKISH REVIEWERS AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

Introduction: Publons is the most prestigious and well-organized platform that allows to evaluate peer review metrics. It also provides publication and citation data as it is synchronized with the Web of Science. There are socio-cultural ties between Central Asian countries and Turkey, and these countries can take Turkey as a model for scientific development. Therefore, it will be useful for Central Asian countries to summarize Turkey's Publons activities. In this study, we used Publons database to list the top institutions, researchers and reviewers in Turkey. Methods: Publons database was used to export the data on October 10, 2021. The top 20 researchers were identified in terms of the number of verified reviews. Additionally, the top 20 institutions were determined in terms of the number of researchers, number of verified reviews and top reviewers. Results: On Publons, 57464 registered researchers from Turkey were found (ranked 7th) and 484 of these researchers had top reviewer status (ranked 16th). A total of 175644 verified reviews were detected from Turkey-based researchers (ranked 16th) and of which 45835 were performed in the last 12 months (ranked 14th). Based on the total number of researchers, four institutions from Turkey were in the top 100 in the world rankings (Hacettepe University, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, and Cukurova University). There were no institutions from Turkey among the top 100 in the lists created according to the number of verified reviews and top reviewers. Conclusion: Turkey has a considerable number of researchers registered with Publons. However, Turkey should follow a scientific route in terms of verified reviews. Turkey and Central Asian countries can create scientific collaborations and cooperative projects. Thus, Central Asian countries will benefit from Turkey's experiences.

Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

The five Central Asian republics comprise of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Their research and publication activities are gradually improving but there is limited data on how good their peer reviewing practices are.

METHODS

We have use the Publons database to extract information on the reviewers registered including the number of verified review, Publons award winners, and top universities in the domain of peer reviewing. This has been analysed overall and country wise.

RESULTS

Of 15,764 researchers registered on Publons, only 370 (11.7%) have verified records of peer-reviewing. There are 8 Publons award winners. There is great heterogeneity in the number of active reviewers across the five countries. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan account for more than 90% of verified reviewers. Only Kazakhstan has more than 100 active reviewers and 6 Publons award recipients. Amongst the top 20 reviewers from Central Asia, half of them are from the Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Three countries have less than 10 universities registered on Publons.

CONCLUSION

Central Asia has a good number of peer reviewers on Publons though only a minority of researchers are involved in peer reviewing. However, the heterogeneity between the nations can be best dealt with by promoting awareness and international networking including e-learning and mentoring programs.

Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers

BACKGROUND

The Publons platform provides integrated information on researchers, peer reviewers, publications and certain author metrics. Central Asia is a potentially growing region in terms of young researchers.

METHODS

Using the inbuilt Publons search, the top institutes of nine countries of Central Asia and neighbours were identified and data on their reviewers, number of publications, number of peer reviews completed were extracted. These were compared with demographics of the countries such as population, gross domestic product, number of physicians and proportion of population enrolled for higher education.

RESULTS

Amongst the top 15 institutes in Central Asia, China has claim to 12 while Kazakhstan has two and Iran has one. The number of top peer reviewers, number of verified reviews and Web of Science indexed publications from these top institutes varied directly with the number of researchers each had. Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are not performing well on most of these while China seems to be an outlier on the upper edge of the graphs. There is good correlation between the number of researchers in the top institutes per country and both number of publications and number of completed reviews. The number of total publications per top ten institutes of each country has high correlation with various demographic parameters like total population (Spearman rho, ρ = 0.85), gross domestic product (ρ = 0.82), total number of physicians (ρ = 0.72), and number enrolled for higher education (ρ = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

There appears to be much disparity among the rankings, number of researchers, reviewers and published manuscripts across various countries in Central Asia. The gross heterogeneity of Central Asia needs to be minimized by nurturing and mentoring potentially upcoming researchers in publication, peer reviewing as well as in ethics involved.