Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature, 1971 to 2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gaudino M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8111562 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature, 1971 to 2020.
Gaudino Mario M Robinson N Bryce NB Audisio Katia K Rahouma Mohamed M Benedetto Umberto U Kurlansky Paul P Fremes Stephen E SE
JAMA internal medicine 20210801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8299312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the frequency and reason for retraction of ophthalmology publications.MethodsTwo independent reviewers retrieved data from PubMed and Medline using appropriate keywords. Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U test. A total of 83 articles were selected for the analysis between 1994 and 2019. Articles were retracted after a median of 1 year (IQR 4.0), and 55 (66.3%) articles were published in the year 2010 or after.ResultsForty-eight (57.8%) articles were original articles. The most common subspecialties involved were basic science (51.8%), followed by vitreoretinal diseases (13.3%) and cornea and external diseases (7.1%). Fraudulent data were the cause of retraction in 22 (26.5%) articles, and 14 articles (16.87%) were retracted because of plagiarism. Thirteen articles (15.7%) were retracted due to errors in the data calculations, and ten (12.04%) were found to be duplicate submissions of previously published articles by the same author, while five articles (6.02%) had authorship disputes. Thirty-nine (46.9%) retracted articles were published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 2. The median number of citations received by the retracted articles was 2.0 (IQR 9.0).ConclusionsWe conclude that the number of retractions in the ophthalmic literature have increased since 2010, though relatively limited information is available on the retracted articles. There is a need to strictly follow the current guidelines for providing the reasons for retraction and displaying retraction notices both in PubMed and on the journal websites.
| S-EPMC8602331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.ResultsWe found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928-2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.ConclusionsRetracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers' awareness of the retracted literature in their field.
| S-EPMC3480361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.
| S-EPMC9140878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a growing interdisciplinary field like biomedical informatics, information dissemination and citation trends are changing rapidly due to many factors. To understand these factors better, we analyzed the evolution of the number of articles per major biomedical informatics topic, download/online view frequencies, and citation patterns (using Web of Science) for articles published from 2009 to 2012 in JAMIA. The number of articles published in JAMIA increased significantly from 2009 to 2012, and there were some topic differences in the last 4 years. Medical Record Systems, Algorithms, and Methods are topic categories that are growing fast in several publications. We observed a significant correlation between download frequencies and the number of citations per month since publication for a given article. Earlier free availability of articles to non-subscribers was associated with a higher number of downloads and showed a trend towards a higher number of citations. This trend will need to be verified as more data accumulate in coming years.
| S-EPMC3861936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retractions serve a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and accuracy of scientific literature. There has been growing interest in understanding the patterns behind retractions. This bibliometric study analyzed retracted articles published between 2003 and 2022, indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection database. A total of 8466 retracted articles were identified, revealing an overall increase up to 2019, followed by a decline. A total of 109 countries contributed to the retracted articles, with China and the United States having the highest absolute numbers. In addition, the articles were published in 2347 different journals, with Tumor Biology recording the largest number of retracted articles. The top 10 most cited retracted articles indicated that data and image integrity issues were the main reasons for retraction. The primary reasons for retractions, identified by linking the retracted articles to the Retraction Watch Database, were data and results issues followed by plagiarism and duplication. In conclusion, the present bibliometric study offered an overview of the status of retracted articles indexed by the Web of Science Core Collection over the past two decades. These findings provide insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised and serve as a guide to foster a responsible research environment.
| S-EPMC11619962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings.MethodsIn this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals.ResultsPeer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.
| S-EPMC7706207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores.MethodsSeventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation).ResultsRetracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media.ConclusionsThese findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.
| S-EPMC8830369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of retracted publications in stem cell research presents significant challenges to scientific integrity. Although retraction notices are issued, retracted studies continue to be cited, facilitating the dissemination of unreliable findings. This study aimed to systematically explore the characteristics of retracted stem cell publications and evaluate the impact of retractions on subsequent citations.MethodsThis study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, Retraction Watch Database, and PubMed was conducted from their inception through July 25, 2024, to identify retracted stem cell publications. Characteristics including publication details, retraction reasons, and citation counts were extracted. To assess the impact of retraction on subsequent citations, we compared citation patterns between a random sample of retracted papers and matched non-retracted controls from identical journals and issues. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether papers citing retracted articles had an elevated risk of subsequent retraction. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, t-tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were used for data analysis.ResultsThe systematic search identified 1421 records, with 517 publications meeting inclusion criteria. Temporal analysis revealed two significant trends: an increasing retraction rate that peaked at 0.84% in 2023 and a declining time-to-retraction (median: 30 months, interquartile range: 13-60; Mann-Kendall, tau = - 0.29; P < 0.001). Hospital-affiliated researchers from China contributed to 244 (47.2%) of retractions. Data and image flaws were identified in 360 (69.6%) of retractions. Among 472 Web of Science-indexed retracted publications, 366 (77.5%) accumulated 4884 post-retraction citations, with 114 (24.2%) receiving more citations post-retraction than pre-retraction. Analysis of a random subset of retracted articles (n = 53) demonstrated that only 14 (4.2%) out of 334 post-retraction citations referenced the retraction notice. Compared with 639 non-retracted control publications, retracted articles showed significantly lower post-retraction citation rates (mean rank: 291.32 vs. 351.08; P = 0.01). Moreover, papers citing retracted articles exhibited an 11-fold higher risk of subsequent retraction (odds ratio (OR): 11.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.06-17.43).ConclusionsThis analysis reveals substantial research integrity challenges within stem cell research. These findings suggest the necessity for enhanced surveillance mechanisms and standardized protocols to identify and curtail the dissemination of flawed research.
| S-EPMC11871751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This data aimed to audit the articles retracted from PubMed indexed dental journals from India. The PubMed indexed journals considered are Indian Journal of Dental research, Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society for type of article, name of dental specialty, topic of individual dental specialties, causes for retraction of article and authorship trend of retracted articles using web-based search. Among PubMed indexed Indian dental journals,the number of retracted articles were as follows: Indian Journal of Dental research (4) followed by Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (3), Contemporary Clinical Dentistry (3), Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (2), Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (2) and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society (1). Out of 15 retracted articles from PubMed indexed Indian dental journals, case reports (7) form a major share followed by original articles(6) and review articles (2). Among the dental specialties of retracted articles, oral pathology and microbiology (5) constitute the major share followed by periodontics (4), pedodontics (4), oral medicine and radiology (1) and prosthodontics (1). Duplicate publication (7), plagiarism (5) and authorship dispute (3) are the causes for the retraction of article.
| S-EPMC5996733 | biostudies-literature