Daily briefing: China’s sweeping retraction audit

Katrina Krämer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00486-x

IF: 64.8

2024-02-13

Nature

Abstract:In a first nationwide review, China’s universities must tell the government all of their retractions from the past three years. Plus, blood proteins reveal dementia risk and Katalin Karikó’s decades-long fight for recognition.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct

Smriti Mallapaty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00397-x

IF: 64.8

2024-02-13

Nature

Abstract:Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors. Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors.

multidisciplinary sciences
Retraction Note To: Mental Health Status, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors of Migrant Children in Eastern Coastal China in Comparison to Urban Children: a Cross-Sectional Survey

Jingjing Lu,Feng Wang,Pengfei Chai,Dongshuo Wang,Lu Li,Xudong Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-0311-2

2020-01-01

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

Abstract:The authors have retracted this article [1] because they do not have documentation of approval of their study by the ethics committee.
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
Analysis of Retractions from Hospitals in Mainland China from 2017-2019

Tianye Zhao,Tiancong Dai,Zhijun Lun,Yanli Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-16354/v1

2020-03-10

Abstract:Abstract Objective : The aim of this study is to analyze the features of retractions from hospitals in mainland China, and to discuss the causes of research misconduct by Chinese doctors. Research Methods : PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch Database were searched to collect eligible records and to extract characteristics of the included entries, including publishers and Open Access status of the journals involved, ORCID, PubPeer comments before the retraction, whether there are authors from Grade A, Third-class hospitals, and whether there are response or requirements from authors. Results : 521 retractions were included. Retractions were found primarily from authors of grade A, third-class hospitals, a limited regions, and published in journals with medium and high impact factor. The main reasons for retractions were Data Manipulation/Fabrication/Fraud(27.1%), Error by Author(19.9%), Plagiarism(16.7%), Self-Plagiarism(9.1%), Fake Peer Review(7.6%) and Forged Authorship(6.3%). Most of the retracted publications have neither ORCID nor PubPeer comments before their retraction. Conclusion : This is the first report focus on the retractions from hospitals in mainland China. The large number of retractions from Chinese hospitals in recent years is worrying. The results suggests that some retractions are related to third-parties. Some features of retractions are centralized, and it is difficult to evaluate the role of ORCID and PubPeer in the retractions during this period.
Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China

Guangyuan Hu,Yuhan Yang,Li Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0017-x

IF: 3.777

2019-01-01

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:This article draws the attention of research managers and policy makers to the issue that to become a science power curtailing misconduct is the daunting challenge that emerging countries simply cannot ignore. Systematic and orchestrated efforts are needed to foster and institutionalize research integrity education among all stakeholders.
Yale University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2dpsa

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
University of Cambridge Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sjuwn

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Princeton University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7t8kq

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
University of Pennsylvania Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/pkf3u

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Stanford University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/pt6yb

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
MIT Libraries / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bxq6h

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

Pan Chen,Xiao-Hong Li,Zhaohui Su,Yi-Lang Tang,Yi Ma,Chee H Ng,Yu-Tao Xiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.937330

2022-08-01

Abstract:Objectives: The growing rate of retraction of scientific publications has attracted much attention within the academic community, but there is little knowledge about the nature of such retractions in schizophrenia-related research. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Materials and methods: The Web of Science was searched for eligible studies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of the retractions using R software and Excel 2019. Content analysis was conducted to examine the essential components of retraction notices. Results: A total of 36 retracted publications with 415 citations were identified from 1997 to 2021, of which, 83.3% occurred in the last decade. The overall retraction rate was 0.19%, with most of them (29; 80.56%) from the United Kingdom. The retractions were published in 33 journals, and the 2020 IFs ranged between 0.17 and 49.96 (Median = 3.93). The retractions involved 21 research areas, particularly in Psychiatry (19; 52.78%), Neurosciences and Neurology (10; 27.78%), and Psychology (7; 19.44%). Data issues (17; 42.22%), administrative errors of the publishers (5; 13.89%), and study design (4; 11.11%) were the top three reasons for retractions. Conclusion: This study provides an insight into retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction.
What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Shaoxiong Brian Xu,Natalie Evans,Guangwei Hu,Lex Bouter,Xu, Shaoxiong Brian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4

IF: 3.777

2023-07-06

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Ethical governance in Chinese universities: an overview of research ethics committees

Dan LiSchool of Marxism,Central South University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2024.2301764

2024-01-04

Ethics & Behavior

Abstract:This study aims to provide an overview of RECs (research ethics committees) in Chinese universities, encompassing both medical and non-medical studies. The primary objective is to identify major challenges faced by RECs in Chinese universities and draw meaningful implications from the findings. The investigation focuses on 42 comprehensive Chinese universities, and the results reveal that while all universities have implemented RECs in various forms, only 28.6% explicitly stipulate ethical review requirements for non-medical disciplines. Furthermore, RECs in Chinese universities encounter various challenges, including insufficient attention to research ethics review, inadequate ethics review systems and regulations, a lack of education and training, and lacking ethics review for non-medical research. This paper proposes recommendations for establishing robust RECs in Chinese universities, seeking to enhance ethical governance in research. By addressing the challenges identified, these recommendations aim to strengthen ethical oversight, foster a culture of responsible research, and uphold the highest ethical standards across diverse academic disciplines.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics
Retraction of Publication in Medical Journals:Current Situation and Principle

郝秀原,陈立敏

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2013.04.002

2013-01-01

Abstract:The incidence of retraction of publication seems to be increasing in medical journals.The aim of this study is to find out the main reasons leading to retraction by investigating the domestic and abroad retractions.Based on the investigation of the principles and practice guidelines,a retraction protocol suitable for China is proposed and the roles that journals and their editors play is suggested.
Research misconduct in hospitals is spreading: A bibliometric analysis of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals

Zi-han Yuan,Yi Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0022

2023-09-22

Journal of Data and Information Science

Abstract:Abstract Purpose The number of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals is increasing, which has raised much concern. The aim of this study is to analyze the retracted papers from university-affiliated hospitals in mainland China from 2000 to 2021. Design/methodology/approach Data for 1,031 retracted papers were identified from the Web of Science Core collection database. The information of the hospitals involved was obtained from their official websites. We analyzed the chronological changes, journal distribution, discipline distribution and retraction reasons for the retracted papers. The grade and geographic locations of the hospitals involved were explored as well. Findings We found a rapid increase in the number of retracted papers, while the retraction time interval is decreasing. The main reasons for retraction are plagiarism/self-plagiarism (n=255), invalid data/images/conclusions (n=212), fake peer review (n=175) and honesty error(n=163). The disciplines are mainly distributed in oncology (n=320), pharmacology & pharmacy (n=198) and research & experimental medicine (n=166). About 43.8% of the retracted papers were from hospitals affiliated with prestigious universities. Research limitations This study fails to differentiate between retractions due to honest error and retractions due to research misconduct. We believe that there is a fundamental difference between honest error retractions and misconduct retractions. Another limitation is that authors of the retracted papers have not been analyzed in this study. Practical implications This study provides a reference for addressing research misconduct in Chinese university-affiliated hospitals. It is our recommendation that universities and hospitals should educate all their staff about the basic norms of research integrity, punish authors of scientific misconduct retracted papers, and reform the unreasonable evaluation system. Originality/value Based on the analysis of retracted papers, this study further analyzes the characteristics of institutions of retracted papers, which may deepen the research on retracted papers and provide a new perspective to understand the retraction phenomenon.

information science & library science
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/72dcy

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Singapore Management University / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hqukc

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
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.
Amend: an integrated platform of retracted papers and concerned papers

Menghui Li,Fuyou Chen,Sichao Tong,Liying Yang,Zhesi Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0012

2024-03-21

Journal of Data and Information Science

Abstract:Abstract Purpose The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders. Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity, including concerns voiced on social media, disclosed lists of paper mills, and retraction notices accessible through journal websites. However, despite the availability of such resources, there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information, thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing. Thus, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns. This article aims to introduce “Amend,” a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms (e.g., PubPeer, For Better Science), retraction notices from journal websites, and citation databases (e.g., Web of Science, CrossRef). Moreover, Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies (e.g., NSFC, MOE, MOST, CAS). Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link. Furthermore, the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles, including citation topics, funding details, open access status, and more. The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors, with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity. Findings Within the Amend platform, a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI, SSCI, and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified. Of these, 26,620 (81.87%) were associated with academic misconduct. The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles. Notably, the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles, with this disparity progressively widening over the years. Furthermore, the reasons for retractions have shifted from traditional individual behaviors like falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and duplication to more organized large-scale fraudulent practices, including Paper Mills, Fake Peer-review, and Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC). Research limitations The Amend platform may not fully capture all retracted and concerning papers, thereby impacting its comprehensiveness. Additionally, inaccuracies in retraction notices may lead to errors in tagged reasons. Practical implications Amend provides an integrated platform for stakeholders to enhance monitoring, analysis, and research on academic misconduct issues. Ultimately, the Amend database can contribute to upholding scientific integrity. Originality/value This study introduces a globally integrated platform for retracted and concerning papers, along with a preliminary analysis of the evolutionary trends in retracted papers.

information science & library science

Daily briefing: China’s sweeping retraction audit

China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct

Retraction Note To: Mental Health Status, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors of Migrant Children in Eastern Coastal China in Comparison to Urban Children: a Cross-Sectional Survey

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

Analysis of Retractions from Hospitals in Mainland China from 2017-2019

Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China

Yale University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

University of Cambridge Library / Key: Academic Retractions

Princeton University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

University of Pennsylvania Library / Key: Academic Retractions

Stanford University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

MIT Libraries / Key: Academic Retractions

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Ethical governance in Chinese universities: an overview of research ethics committees

Retraction of Publication in Medical Journals:Current Situation and Principle

Research misconduct in hospitals is spreading: A bibliometric analysis of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

Singapore Management University / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

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

Amend: an integrated platform of retracted papers and concerned papers