Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Richard Van Noorden,Miryam Naddaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02719-5

IF: 64.8

2024-08-31

Nature

Abstract:Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature. Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Martin Shepperd,Leila Yousefi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285383

2022-06-14

Abstract:Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact on systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., approximately 8.3%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers, provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also a remarkable disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper over and above the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted. Conclusions: Unfortunately retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.

Information Retrieval
Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?

Kiran Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.13091

2020-11-26

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications and this database reveals the disturbing trend in science~\citep{fang2012misconduct, brainard2018massive}. The objective of the study is to find the association among the authors' collaboration, the number of retracted papers, the number of retracted citations, journal impact factor, and research areas. We present a detailed analysis of 12231 research papers indexed by Web of Science (WoS) as retracted publications from 1981-2020. The study demonstrates the collaboration patterns of retracted publications where 61.5% of authors have only one and 24.6% have two retracted papers; however, 2% of authors have more than 10 retracted papers. To study the impact of citing retracted papers, we investigated the retracted papers with citations. The study reveals that 55.2% of retracted papers have been cited at least once, where 25.4% of papers are such papers where at least one citation turned out to be a retraction. This shows the impact of scientific misconduct or fraud on new research. The number of retractions is independent of the journal impact factor and as compared to high impact papers, low impact papers are attracting more citations. We also investigate the citations received by retracted papers published in higher as well as lower impact factor journals. 1/4th of the papers are retracted citations that cited the retracted papers; however, there is no significant relationship exists between the higher impact or lower impact journals with retractions or citations. Finally, how the average team size and average retracted citations vary among different research areas are studied. The study provides an insight that how a fraud leads to another fraud in the scientific world. Also, the rising trend of citations of retracted papers is a serious concern.
Citing documents of Wakefield’s retracted article: the domino effect of authors and journals

Jacqueline Leta,Kizi Araujo,Stephanie Treiber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04353-2

IF: 3.801

2022-04-04

Scientometrics

Abstract:The present study aims to find out the origin of authors and the main sources in which citing documents of Wakefield's 1998 retracted article are published in order to understand whether they act as promoters of a negative domino effect, there is, keeping alive a retracted article due to fraudulent data and analysis on the relationship between MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism. The metadata of the 1577 citing documents of Wakefield's article were downloaded from Scopus in three files according to the year of publication: 1998–2004 (partial retraction), 2005–2010 (in between partial and full retraction) and 2011–2020 (post full retraction). The number of citing documents in each period is 329, 411 and 837, respectively. A comparison between first and last periods indicates an impressive growth of language, authors, countries as well as journals from broader field coverage. Also, recent citing articles are highly cited and, even in a negative context, they contribute to the diffusion of a fraudulent article in the science context. The findings reinforce the urgency to create internal strategies in the scientific communication process, mainly inside the editorial flow, in order to reduce the dissemination of a retracted article that, in this case, is still harmful to society. At the end, the creation of an automatic mechanism to detect retracted articles included in the reference list of accepted articles is suggested.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Are We Standing on Unreliable Shoulders? The Effect of Retracted Papers Citations on Previous and Subsequent Published Papers: A Study of the Web of Science Database

Sepideh Fahimifar,Ali Ghorbi,Marcel Ausloos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.09090

2022-01-22

Digital Libraries

Abstract:The present research attempts to identify the impact of retracted papers on previous or subsequent papers. We consider the 5693 retracted papers from 1975 to 2020 indexed in the Web of Science database based on bibliometric methods. We use HistCite, Excel, and SPSS software as technical means. The findings suggest a significant difference between the average number of retracted and unretracted papers when cited in retracted papers. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between the average number of unretracted and retracted papers citing retracted papers. The reasons for the retraction of an article may not be the previous retracted papers, yet unretracted papers may be retracted later because of referring to (many) retracted papers. It is deduced that proprietors of citation databases should carefully focus on these papers by checking references to each new paper citing previously retracted papers.
Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications During 1978–2017

Zhang Qin,Abraham Juneman,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w

2020-01-01

Abstract:Scientific collaboration has considerably grown in recent years, and has been recognized as a positive factor for research productivity and quality. This study is aimed at exploring the collaboration in retracted publications and the influence on different kinds of scientific misbehaviors based on 4842 retracted publications in Web of Science Core Collection from 1978 to 2017. Search results showed that the proportion of international collaborations in retracted publications has fluctuated at around 20% in the past 17 years, and different collaboration patterns of major countries are revealed. The USA and China contributed to more than half of all retracted publications, while retraction rate of Chinese papers was three times higher compared to papers from the USA. A negative correlation between the proportion of internationally collaborative publications and the retraction rate was found. Countries involved in more international collaborations tend to have lower retraction rates. Also, the occurrences of plagiarism was found to be lower when a paper is contributed by more authors, while falsification or manipulation, errors or unreliable results appeared more frequently under the same condition. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to strengthen the scientific norms and integrity within collaborative groups.
A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield et al.'s case

Ivan Heibi,Silvio Peroni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.11475

2020-12-21

Digital Libraries

Abstract:In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing retracted articles and the characteristics of the citations the retracted articles accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles, and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.'s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.'s article even before its full retraction, happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.'s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large part of the citations received by Wakefield et al.'s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction and often provided strong negative statements on it.
Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers

Bor Luen Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11040047

2023-10-09

Publications

Abstract:Once retracted, the citation count of a research paper might be intuitively expected to drop precipitously. Here, we assessed the post-retraction citation of life and medical sciences papers from two top-ranked, multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science, from 2010 to 2018. Post-retraction citations accounted for a staggering 47.7% and 40.9% of total citations (median values), respectively, of the papers included in our analysis. These numbers are comparable with those from two journals with lower impact factors, and with retracted papers from the physical sciences discipline. A more qualitative assessment of five papers from the two journals with a high percentage (>50%) of post-retraction citations, all of which are associated with misconduct, reveal different contributing reasons and factors. Retracted papers associated with highly publicized misconduct cases are more prone to being cited with the retraction status indicated, or projected negatively (such as in the context of research ethics and misconduct discussions), with the latter also indicated by cross-disciplinary citations by humanities and social sciences articles. Retracted papers that retained significant validity in their main findings/conclusions may receive a large number of neutral citations that are somewhat blind to the retraction. Retracted papers in popular subject areas with massive publication outputs, particularly secondary publications such as reviews, may also have a high background citation noise. Our findings add further insights to the nature of post-retraction citations beyond the plain notion that these are largely made through sheer ignorance or negligence by the citing authors.
A quantitative and qualitative open citation analysis of retracted articles in the humanities

Ivan Heibi,Silvio Peroni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00222

2023-03-26

Quantitative Science Studies

Abstract:In this article, we show and discuss the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations of retracted publications in the humanities domain. Our study was conducted by selecting retracted papers in the humanities domain and marking their main characteristics (e.g., retraction reason). Then, we gathered the citing entities and annotated their basic metadata (e.g., title, venue, subject) and the characteristics of their in-text citations (e.g., intent, sentiment). Using these data, we performed a quantitative and qualitative study of retractions in the humanities, presenting descriptive statistics and a topic modeling analysis of the citing entities' abstracts and the in-text citation contexts. As part of our main findings, we noticed that there was no drop in the overall number of citations after the year of retraction, with few entities that have either mentioned the retraction or expressed a negative sentiment toward the cited publication. In addition, on several occasions, we noticed a higher concern/awareness by citing entities belonging to the health sciences domain about citing a retracted publication, compared with the humanities and social science domains. Philosophy, arts, and history are the humanities areas that showed higher concern toward the retraction.

English Else
Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

John P. A. Ioannidis,Angelo Maria Pezzullo,Antonio Cristiano,Stefania Boccia,Jeroen Baas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.16.613258

2024-09-17

Abstract:Citation metrics are widely used in research appraisal, but they provide incomplete views of scientists’ impact and research track record. Other indicators of research practices should be linked to citation data. We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least one retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists’ profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

Scientific Communication and Education
A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact

Xin Shuai,Isabelle Moulinier,Jason Rollins,Tonya Custis,Frank Schilder,Mathilda Edmunds

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.09123

2016-03-01

Abstract:Over the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact of retracted papers, authors, and institutions? Two, does this influence propagate to the wider academic community through scholarly associations? Specifically, we analyzed a set of retracted articles indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS), and ran multiple experiments to compare changes in scholarly impact against a control set of non-retracted articles, authors, and institutions. We further applied the Granger Causality test to investigate whether different scientific topics are dynamically affected by retracted papers occurring within those topics. Our results show two key findings: first, the scholarly impact of retracted papers and authors significantly decreases after retraction, and the most severe impact decrease correlates to retractions based on proven purposeful scientific misconduct; second, this retraction penalty does not seem to spread through the broader scholarly social graph, but instead has a limited and localized effect. Our findings may provide useful insights for scholars or science committees to evaluate the scholarly value of papers, authors, or institutions related to retractions.

Digital Libraries,Social and Information Networks,Physics and Society
Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

Cristina Candal-Pedreira,Joseph S Ross,Alberto Ruano-Ravina,David S Egilman,Esteve Fernández,Mónica Pérez-Ríos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517

2022-11-29

The BMJ

Abstract:ObjectivesTo describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.DesignCross sectional study.SettingThe Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.ParticipantsAll paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.Main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.Results1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.ConclusionsPapers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.
Unraveling Retraction Dynamics in COVID-19 Research: Patterns, Reasons, and Implications

Parul Khurana,Ziya Uddin,Kiran Sharma

2024-03-27

Abstract:Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, some scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the Retraction Watch database until February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retraction trends. For all stakeholders involved, such as editors, relevant researchers, and policymakers, evaluating the journal's quality is crucial information since it could help them effectively stop such incidents and their negative effects in the future. The present research results imply that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6\% within six months of publication. One-third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8). A notable percentage of the retracted papers (23.2\%) lacked publishing impact, signifying their publication as conference papers or in journals not indexed by Scopus. An examination of the retraction reasons reveals that one-fourth of retractions were due to numerous causes, mostly in Q2 journals, and another quarter were due to data problems, with the majority happening in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31 of the papers, with the majority published in Q1, followed by Springer (11.5), predominantly in Q2. Retracted papers were mainly associated with the USA, China, and India. In the USA, retractions were primarily from Q1 journals followed by no-impact publications; in China, it was Q1 followed by Q2, and in India, it was Q2 followed by no-impact publications. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3 were male contributors, with females (30.7) mainly holding middle author positions.

Digital Libraries
'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8

IF: 64.8

2024-10-15

Nature

Abstract:A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan. A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan.

multidisciplinary sciences
Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication

Mohammad Javed Ali,Ali Djalilian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2024.2306434

2024-01-20

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Abstract:Correcting the literature and ensuring its accuracy and reliability are essential for maintaining transparency and public trust in science. Several modalities are available to carry out correction in the literature, including errata, corrigenda, expression of concern (EoC), and retraction. Citation 1 , Citation 2 Retraction is the act of removing a fraudulent published paper from the literature to correct the literature and maintain the integrity of scientific literature. Citation 1–7 The purpose of this retraction is to alert the readership of serious flaws in data validity, interpretations, or conclusion of a specific research. Van Noorden called retractions 'science's ultimate post-publication punishment'. Citation 3 While the number of publications is steadily increasing year on year, so is the number of retractions. A study of biomedical literature has demonstrated that the mean number of publications over the last decade was 828,917 per year and a total number of retractions in the last 10 years were over 4000 and this could only be the tip of the iceberg. Citation 4 A recent analysis of 18 years found 1182 retracted papers originating from paper mills. Citation 6 The retraction of PubMed indexed articles increased from 0.002% to 0.02% from the 1980s to 2009. Citation 7 This increase in retractions can be secondary to several factors including increasing awareness, software to detect plagiarism and image manipulations, and wider reach of papers to the global audience via the internet.

ophthalmology
Retraction: the "other Face" of Research Collaboration.

Li Tang,Guangyuan Hu,Yang Sui,Yuhan Yang,Cong Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1

2017-01-01

Abstract:The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.
Reliability of the primary scientific literature

A. Abeysekera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991

2024-01-02

Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka

Abstract:The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.

multidisciplinary sciences
Two Decades of Scientific Misconduct in India: Retraction Reasons and Journal Quality among Inter-country and Intra-country Institutional Collaboration

Kiran Sharma

2024-03-29

Abstract:Research stands as a pivotal factor in propelling the progress of any nation forward. However, if tainted by misconduct, it poses a significant threat to the nation's development. This study aims to scrutinize various cases of deliberate scientific misconduct by Indian researchers. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 3,244 retracted publications sourced from the Retraction Watch database. The upward trend in retractions is alarming, although the decreasing duration of retractions indicates proactive measures by journals against misconduct. Approximately 60% of retractions stem from private institutions, with fake peer reviews identified as the primary cause of misconduct. This trend could be attributed to incentivizing publication quantity over quality in private institutions, potentially fostering unfair publishing practices. Retractions due to data integrity issues are predominantly observed in public and medical institutions, while retractions due to plagiarism occur in conference proceedings and non-Scopus-indexed journals. Examining retractions resulting from institutional collaborations reveals that 80% originate from within the country, with the remaining 20% being international collaborations. Among inter-country collaborations, one-third of retractions come from the top two journal quartiles, whereas, in intra-country collaborations, half of the retractions stem from Q1 and Q2 journals. Clinical studies retracted from intra-country collaborations are mostly from Q3 and Q4 journals, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they primarily come from Q1 journals. Regarding top journals by the number of retractions in intra-country collaborations, they belong to the Q2 and Q4 categories, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they are in Q1.

Digital Libraries
Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals

Paul Sebo,Joëlle Schwarz,Margaux Achtari,Carole Clair

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/48529

2023-10-06

Abstract:We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.
Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications

Alessandro De Cassai,Federico Geraldini,Silvia De Pinto,Ilaria Carbonari,Marco Cascella,Annalisa Boscolo,Nicolò Sella,Francesco Monteleone,Fabio Cavaliere,Marina Munari,Eugenio Garofalo,Paolo Navalesi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000004302

IF: 8.986

2022-07-05

Anesthesiology

Abstract:Background Retracted articles represent research withdrawn from the existing body of literature after publication. Research articles may be retracted for several reasons ranging from honest errors to intentional misconduct. They should not be used as reliable sources, and it is unclear why they are cited occasionally by other articles. This study hypothesized that several mechanisms may contribute to citing retracted literature and aimed to analyze the characteristics of articles citing retracted literature in anesthesiology and critical care. Methods Using the Retraction Watch database, we retrieved retracted articles on anesthesiology and intensive care medicine up to August 16, 2021, and identified the papers citing these retracted articles. A survey designed to investigate the reasons for citing these articles was sent to the corresponding authors of the citing papers. Results We identified 478 retracted articles, 220 (46%) of which were cited at least once. We contacted 1297 corresponding authors of the papers that cited these articles, 417 (30%) of whom responded to our survey and were included in the final analysis. The median number of authors in the analyzed articles was five, and the median elapsed time from retraction to citation was 3 yr. Most of the corresponding authors (372, 89%) were unaware of the retracted status of the cited article, mainly because of inadequate notification of the retraction status in journals and/or databases and the use of stored copies. Conclusions The corresponding authors were generally unaware of the retraction of the cited article, usually because of inadequate identification of the retracted status in journals and/or web databases and the use of stored copies. Awareness of this phenomenon and rigorous control of the cited references before submitting a paper are of fundamental importance in research. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

anesthesiology
High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct

Yu Xiao,Jia Chen,Xiao-hong Wu,Qin-ming Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140853

2021-09-06

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Abstract:As researchers, we found the article, 'Peer reviews. A peer reviewer's view'1 thought provoking. The author states that a detailed analysis of retracted papers reveals that faked peer reviews are not uncommon. Shockingly, 75% of 250 retracted papers that had faked peer review were written by Chinese authors.2 Nowadays, because researchers are eager to be recognised and cited, the peer review system is greatly challenged. Between 2007 and 2018, the retraction rate of Chinese authors' Science Citation Index (SCI) papers was the highest in the world, reaching 22.7/10 000 papers, five times that of the USA.3 Retractions were issued because of fraud, inconsistent reporting, plagiarism, mistakes, duplication, legal and ethical concerns, and disputed authorship. A study shows that the article types which are frequently retracted are original research works, randomised trials and reviews, and there is a strong association between the retracted items and...

medicine, general & internal

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?

Citing documents of Wakefield’s retracted article: the domino effect of authors and journals

Are We Standing on Unreliable Shoulders? The Effect of Retracted Papers Citations on Previous and Subsequent Published Papers: A Study of the Web of Science Database

Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications During 1978–2017

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield et al.'s case

Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers

A quantitative and qualitative open citation analysis of retracted articles in the humanities

Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

Unraveling Retraction Dynamics in COVID-19 Research: Patterns, Reasons, and Implications

'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication

Retraction: the "other Face" of Research Collaboration.

Reliability of the primary scientific literature

Two Decades of Scientific Misconduct in India: Retraction Reasons and Journal Quality among Inter-country and Intra-country Institutional Collaboration

Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals

Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications

High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct