Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

Jeffrey Brainard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado2400

IF: 56.9

2024-01-26

Science

Abstract:Years after whistleblowers questioned nearly 300 papers, journals are slow to respond

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Paper trail

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado0309

IF: 56.9

2024-01-20

Science

Abstract:In the latest twist of the publishing arms race, firms churning out fake papers have taken to bribing journal editors

multidisciplinary sciences
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
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.
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
An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii

U. M. McHugh,S. M. Yentis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14414

IF: 12.893

2018-08-24

Anaesthesia

Abstract:We analysed how long it has taken for papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii to be retracted: investigations into these three anaesthetists have shown much of their research to be unethical or fraudulent. To date, 94% of their combined papers requiring retraction have been retracted; however, only 85% of the retraction notices were compliant with guidelines produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics. We contacted the Editors-in-Chief and/or publishers of all the journals containing articles that had been identified as requiring retraction but had not yet been retracted. In response to our enquiries, 16 articles have since been retracted; we have documented the journals' responses regarding the remaining papers and await further retractions in the future. There is room for improvement in the way that unethical or fraudulent papers are handled by journals and publishers, beyond the identification of the authors' misconduct.

anesthesiology
Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

Xingbo Wang,Ning Gao,Huan Chen,Weiming Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15960

Abstract:Background and purpose: Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents. Methods: A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%). Results and conclusions: The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.
An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

Venkatesh S Madhugiri,Amrutha Bindu Nagella,Alok Mohan Uppar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z

Abstract:Background: As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. Methods: Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed. Results: A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%. Conclusions: The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.
'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
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.
Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Brian Owens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q659

2024-03-27

BMJ

Abstract:Frontiers, like other for-profit open access publishers, has struggled with a perception it has low editorial standards and weak peer review. But is that true? Brian Owens reports

medicine, general & internal
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
Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01609-0

IF: 64.8

2024-06-01

Nature

Abstract:Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions. Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions.

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
Retracted papers by Iranian authors: Causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations

Ali Ghorbi,Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh,Erfan Ghaderi-Azad,Marcel Ausloos,Marcin Kozak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04104-9

2021-08-29

Abstract:This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001-2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The maximum time-lag (about 3,000 days) occurred for papers retracted due to duplicate publications; the minimum time-lag (fewer than 100 days) was for papers retracted due to ''unspecified cause'' (most of these were conference papers). As many as 48 (14%) of the retracted papers were published in two medical journals: Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). From the institutional point of view, Islamic Azad University was the inglorious leader, contributing to over one-half (53.1%) of retracted papers. Among the 343 retraction notices, 64 papers pertained to international collaborations with researchers from mainly Asian and European countries; Malaysia having the most retractions (22 papers). Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

Evelyne Decullier,Laure Huot,Géraldine Samson,Hervé Maisonneuve

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-238

2013-06-19

Abstract:Background: Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines. Methods: All retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type "retraction of publication". The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article. Results: Overall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction. Conclusion: A standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.
Retractions in Rehabilitation and Sport Sciences Journals: A Systematic Review

Sinan Kardeş,William Levack,Kağan Özkuk,Ebru Atmaca Aydın,Serap Seringeç Karabulut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.010

Abstract:Objective: To identify the characteristics of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals. Data sources: The Web of Science, PubMed, and Retraction Watch databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Study selection: Retracted publications published in rehabilitation or sport sciences journals, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were included. Data extraction: One author extracted the data. Two other authors checked the data. Data synthesis: A total of 37 and 52 retracted publications and their retraction notices were identified for rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. The majority of retracted publications (68% of all retracted papers in rehabilitation and 54% of all retracted papers in sport sciences) were published in the past decade. Retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences were published in 21 and 22 different journals and originated from 18 and 21 different countries, respectively. The full-text of the retracted publications was available with a retraction watermark or note for 59% of cases in rehabilitation and 58% in sport sciences. The reasons for the retractions were more often attributed to misconduct (79% and 61%) than to honest error (21% and 39%) in rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. However, a reason was not stated for 15% of the publications. The median time interval between publication and retraction was 622 days in rehabilitation and 607 days in sport sciences publications. Conclusions: The total number of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals was small. The retracted publications have been published in a variety of rehabilitation and sport sciences journals and came from different countries across the world. Several retracted publications and retraction notices failed to adhere to The Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines in the handling of full-text (retain with a watermark or note) or stating the underlying reasons for the retraction.
Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

Yashendra Sethi,Oroshay Kaiwan,Giacomo Frati,Mariangela Peruzzi,Mattia Galli,Mario Gaudino,Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1

Abstract:Introduction: The escalating trend of academic article retractions over the last decades raises concerns about scientific integrity, but heterogeneity in retractions and reasons for them pose a major challenge. We aimed to comprehensively overview systematic reviews focusing on retractions in the biomedical literature. Evidence acquisition: We abstracted salient features and bibliometric details from shortlisted articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for validity appraisal. Evidence synthesis: A total of 11 reviews were included, published between 2016 and 2023, and reporting on a total of 1851 retracted studies. Several major reasons for retractions were identified, spanning both misconduct (e.g., falsification, duplication, plagiarism) and non-misconduct issues (e.g., unreliable data, publishing problems). Correlates include author-related factors (number of authors, nationality) and journal-related factors (impact factor), with repeat offenders contributing significantly. Impacts of retractions is profound, affecting scholarly credibility, public trust, and resource utilization. Conclusions: In order to prevent retractions and amend their adverse effects, rigorous and transparent reporting standards, enhanced training in research ethics, strengthened peer review processes, and the establishment of collaborative and integrated research integrity offices are proposed.
Why a publisher retracted abortion-pill studies cited in a case set for the Supreme Court

Mariana Lenharo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00556-0

IF: 64.8

2024-02-28

Nature

Abstract:Nature spoke to researchers about the flaws that triggered the retractions. They say these papers are just the tip of the iceberg. Nature spoke to researchers about the flaws that triggered the retractions. They say these papers are just the tip of the iceberg.

multidisciplinary sciences
Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group

Andrew Grey,Alison Avenell,Mark Bolland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1920409

Abstract:Publications of expressions of concern and retractions should be timely, accurate and comprehensive. We as sessed these characteristics for 292 publications by a research group about which we submitted concerns about publication integrity to 77 journals and 29 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By October 2020, 115 publications were corrected (3), had expressions of concern (18), or were retracted (94). The median (95% CI) time from submission of concerns to the first journal correction was 22.1 (18.2-26.9) months: this did not diminish by year of submission of concerns, varied between publishers, and was shorter for journals with higher impact factors. Eighty-four publications of original research were retracted. The median (range) proportion of concerns raised with the journal that were mentioned in the ensuing retraction notices was 9.5% (2-49). At least 75% of retraction notices included the suggested content for 7/9, 3/9 and 3/16 items in the Committee for Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch minimum and optimal recommended formats, respectively. Thus, assessment of concerns about publication integrity was delayed and incomplete. Adherence to recommended content of retraction notices was moderate at best. Strategies are needed to improve the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of processes for resolving concerns about publication integrity.
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

Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

Paper trail

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

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

Reliability of the primary scientific literature

An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

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

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

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

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

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

Retracted papers by Iranian authors: Causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations

Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

Retractions in Rehabilitation and Sport Sciences Journals: A Systematic Review

Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

Why a publisher retracted abortion-pill studies cited in a case set for the Supreme Court

Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies