Search

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus ( n  = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact.

The Dirk Smeesters case is one of the most well-documented and widely publicized cases of research misconduct to date. We investigate, using a case study approach, which of Smeesters' articles were found to be unreliable and recommended for retraction, which were retracted, and which were not. We also investigate by whom, when, and how these fraudulent articles were retracted. We found that only six retraction notices exist for the seven Smeesters' fraudulent articles that were recommended for retraction. For four of the six retraction notices, there were no explicit markers that clearly indicated who wrote them (e.g., the editor and/or the publisher). Smeesters' flawed articles were retracted in 97.6 days on average by the retracting journals. Retraction practices in these elite marketing and social psychology journals ranged from a seeming failure to retract (i.e., no record of a retraction notice) to a fair (i.e., informative and transparent) retraction. We also emphasize the ramifications of failing to retract an article whose findings are based on fabricated data. We conclude by listing the lessons learned from the Smeesters case.

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of previous research that has investigated retractions within the biomedical fields and assess their methodological quality. We searched three major electronic databases for articles on retractions within the biomedical field: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. In total, 162 articles were included in the analysis. We evaluated their methodological quality using the items of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Cochrane guidance. The studies had been published in more than 20 biomedical disciplines or fields of investigation, and two-thirds were published after 2017. Concerning methodology, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; five studies did not meet any of the suggested AMSTAR-2 categories or Cochrane guidelines. The most prevalent reported reasons for retraction were fraud and plagiarism (21.0%). In summary, there has been increasing interest in assessing the characteristics and impact of retractions in the biomedical sciences. The studies cited types of misconduct more often than honest errors as a major reason for retraction. The methodological quality of the existing studies in this area appears to be suboptimal. Future investigators should improve upon this, particularly in the quality of the data selection and extraction.

The ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has triggered a flurry of associated research publications, numbering to ~137 papers a day since February 2020. This rate of publication appears to be exceptionally high, when compared to research papers published on other similar topics. Searches of COVID-19-associated publications on PubMed and Retraction Watch Database indicate that the retraction record appearance rate for COVID-19-related research is also exceptionally high compared to other related research topics in viral epidemics/pandemics and surpasses the basal level of about 4 in 10,000 papers. This finding serves as a reminder and caution against any lapses in the standard of work, peer review, and publication of COVID-19-related research.

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.

Retraction of scientific publications can unmask scientific misconduct. We undertook a survey of publication rates, for authors with multiple retractions in the biomedical literature, to determine whether they changed after authors' first retractions. We collected publication and citation data from Scopus for 100 authors with multiple retractions (either >10 retractions or 2-5 retractions) in the Retraction Watch database. Publication rates increased until the year of the first retraction and decreased rapidly thereafter. By 4 years after the first retraction, the proportion of authors actively publishing at least one paper/year was <50%, annual publication rates were <50% of the pre-retraction rate, and only 22% of authors had a publication rate >50% of their pre-retraction rate. There was no difference in the decline in publication rates between authors associated with a retraction for misconduct and those not associated with such a retraction. After the first retraction, citation rates of retracted papers declined whereas those of unretracted papers by the same authors remained unchanged. In summary, publication rates of authors with multiple retractions, most of whom were associated with scientific misconduct, declined rapidly after their first retraction but a small minority continued to publish regularly.

Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.

Both the scientific community and the general public have expressed concern over scientific misconduct. The number of retracted articles has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about .02% of the 2 million articles published each year. Retraction of publications available in large public databases can be analyzed as an objective measure for scientific misconduct and errors. In this project, we analyzed retractions of scientific publications using the Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases. We found that a power law is applicable to distributions of retracting authors and retracted publications with exponents of about -.6 and -3.0, respectively. Application of a power-law model for retracted publications implies that retraction is not a random event. Analysis of the retraction distributions suggests that a small fraction (1-2%) of retracting authors with ≧5 retractions are responsible for around 10% of retraction. The probabilities for their repeating retraction are calculated using a statistical model: 3-5% likelihood of repeat retraction for authors with a single retraction at five years after the latest retraction and 26-37% for authors with five retractions at five years after the latest retraction. By focusing on those with repeated retractions, this analysis could contribute to identification of measures to reduce such repetition of retractions.

Important and potentially useful findings in the sciences are under more intense public scrutiny now more than ever. Other researchers in the field dive into replicating and expanding the findings while the media swamps the community and the public with peripheral reporting and analyses. How should authors and the hosting/funding institutions respond when other workers in the field could not reproduce or replicate their published results? To illustrate the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven investigations in response to outcries of research irreproducibility, I draw on comparisons between three recent and well-publicized cases in the life sciences: betatrophin, Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) cells, and Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo). Swift, transparent responses and investigations facilitate activation of the self-correcting mechanism of science and are likely also critical in preserving the community's resources, public trust, and the reputation of the institutions and individuals concerned. Operational guidelines for "author and institutional responses" towards external reports of irreproducibility should therefore be in place for all research intensive institutions.

Published articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered reliable due to honest error, publication misconduct, or research misconduct. This article focuses on the case of a single serial violator of research and publication ethics in anesthesiology and critical care, which is widely publicized. A chain of events led to detection of misconduct that had substantial impact on the evidence base for the safety of hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous artificial colloid solution, which is reflected in current guidelines on fluid management and volume resuscitation. As citations to retracted works continue to be a cause for concern, this article reviews the retraction status of this author's published articles to determine whether sufficient action has been taken to retract his body of work. Results show that retraction practices are not uniform and that guidelines for retraction are still not being fully implemented, resulting in retractions of insufficient quantity and quality. As retractions continue to emerge for the author's publications, with ten more since 2011, and as they are generally increasing, these data on retractions not only provide findings of misconduct, but also allow us to make inferences about ongoing weaknesses in the system of scientific literature.

Though protection of human research subjects is universally recognized as a critical requirement for the ethical conduct of research, few studies have examined retractions of medical articles through apparent noncompliance with that requirement. From our survey of 99 retracted papers published from 1981 to 2011, we found that the basis for those decisions was poorly explained in retraction notices and that most of the articles continued to be cited. In retraction notices, the current manner of explaining failure to protect human subjects is misleading and confusing.

Studies have indicated that the number and frequency of fraudulent publications being retracted are not subsiding even with greater awareness of such incidents in the recent decades. In this study, the trends of retraction period, number of citations and coauthors of 5 selected researchers who had ≥ 15 fraudulent publications retracted were analyzed. The obtained results shows that the retraction period is 48.96 ± 32.16 months for the 113 publications affiliated to the 5 studied researchers. There are a total of 180 coauthors with 6.40 ± 3.26 coauthors per researcher's retracted publication. The linear regression analysis indicates that there is limited correlation (R(2) = .008) between the citation counts and retraction period. The p value for multiple F-tests to assess the number of coauthors to a fraudulent publication on an interresearcher basis is found to be ranging from < .001 to .458. It is also found that a better correlation (R(2) = .592) exists between the likelihood of a researcher to involve different individuals for isolated fraudulent publications while only selecting very few to be their frequent coauthors of their mischievous acts. With this study, the possible use of coauthors as a strategy for publishing fraudulent work and a potential approach to tighten coauthorship are discussed.

Objectives: To investigate whether plagiarism is more prevalent in publications retracted from the medical literature when first authors are affiliated with lower-income countries versus higher-income countries. Secondary objectives included investigating other factors associated with plagiarism (e.g., national language of the first author's country affiliation, publication type, journal ranking)., Design: Systematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study., Data Source: Retracted publications dataset in MEDLINE (search filters: English, human, January 1966-February 2008)., Data Selection: Retracted misconduct publications were classified according to the first author's country affiliation, country income level, and country national language, publication type, and ranking of the publishing journal. Standardised definitions and data collection tools were used; data were analysed (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence limits [CL], chi-squared tests) by an independent academic statistician., Results: Of the 213 retracted misconduct publications, 41.8% (89/213) were retracted for plagiarism, 52.1% (111/213) for falsification/fabrication, 2.3% (5/213) for author disputes, 2.3% (5/213) for ethical issues, and 1.4% (3/213) for unknown reasons. The OR (95% CL) of plagiarism retractions (other misconduct retractions as reference) were higher (P < 0.001) for first authors affiliated with lower-income versus higher-income countries (15.4 [4.5, 52.9]) and with non-English versus English national language countries (3.2 [1.8, 5.7]), for non-original research versus original research publications (8.4 [3.3, 21.3]), for case reports and series versus other original research types (4.2 [1.4, 13.0]), and for publications in low-ranked versus high-ranked journals (4.9 [2.4, 9.9]). Up until 2012, there were significantly (P < 0.007) fewer 'serial offenders' (first authors with >1 retraction) with publications retracted for plagiarism (11.5%, 9/78) than other types of misconduct (28.9%, 24/83)., Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that publications retracted for plagiarism are significantly associated with first authors affiliated with lower-income countries. These findings have implications for developing appropriate evidence-based strategies and allocation of resources to help mitigate plagiarism misconduct.

Objective: It has been proposed that the scientific literature purges itself of articles known to be fraudulent. To test this, an investigation was carried out of post-retraction citations over a 19-year period in the Breuning case., Methods: On 10 March 2008 a cited reference search was conducted (all languages, all document types) using the name 'Breuning SE*'. The time limit was 1989-2007 with an option to exclude self-citations. The search included the ISI Web of Science Database including the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citations Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index. To ascertain the citation context, citations of Breuning were classified by two raters as affirmative, negative or neutral., Findings: For the period 1989-2000 both negative and affirmative citations were found. For the period 2001-2006 only affirmative citations (even to retracted articles) were found, some in journals with higher impact factors than those citing the case as fraudulent. In spite of the small number of citations of Breuning's articles, it is alarming that the affirmative citing of fraudulent research has not completely ceased but continues 24 years post-retraction (retracted 1982, cited 2006). While the limitations of a single case study are conceded, the results challenge the belief of scientific literature purging itself of fraudulent material., Conclusions: Retraction databases and widespread availability of computer software to check lists of references free of charge in any database or the internet are called for. Moreover, if a paper is never formally retracted, software for searching author names in the internet for fully investigated and proven scientific misconduct might be developed. The ethical guidelines on duplicate publication for purposes of disseminating the information as widely as possible should be reviewed.