Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Research Misconduct: A Comprehensive Examination of Retracted Publications in Biomedical Literature


Affiliations
1 Department of Library and Information Science (DLIS), School of Information Science and Technology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow - 226025, Uttar Pradesh, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The study aims to examine retracted articles in the biomedical literature and inspect the characteristics of retracted papers. The PubMed database was searched for retracted articles from 2012 to 2022. Four hundred twenty-one retracted articles were identified and used to examine retraction characteristics, publishers, the impact factor of retracted articles, and reasons for retraction. China published more than one-third of the retracted articles. Four authors wrote 16.86 per cent of the retracted papers. Springer has the highest retraction rate. The retraction rate has been increasing since 2012. Of 421, 364 (86.46 per cent) had an IF (Journal Citation Reports). Reasons for retraction include plagiarism, fake peer review, duplication of an article, concerns/issues about data/error in data, error in analyses, error in methods, notice-limited or no information lack of IRB/IACUC approval, concerns/issues about referencing/attributions, lack of approval from the third party, lack of approval from author and author withdrawn. These findings suggest a need for a strict and more deliberate role of editors, reviewers, institutions and governments to emphasize the importance of avoiding research wrongdoing. This study reflects the erroneous mistakes made by the academic community to get their work published.

Keywords

Biomedical Literature, Journal Impact Factor, Research Misconduct, Retracted Publications, Reasons for Retraction, Retracted Papers.
User
About The Author

Somipam R. Shimray
Department of Library and Information Science (DLIS), School of Information Science and Technology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow - 226025, Uttar Pradesh
India


Notifications

  • Bhatt, B. (2021). A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences. Scientometrics, 126, 4039–4054. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-021-03907-0
  • Bik, E. M., Casadevall, A., and Fang, F. C. (2016). The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research. mBio, 7, Article e00809-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/ mBio.00809-16 PMid:27273827 PMCid:PMC4941872
  • Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N. and Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: A systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017- 0031-1 PMid:29451549 PMCid:PMC5803635
  • BMJ. (2022). Scientific misconduct. Available at: https://www. bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policiesand- checklists/scientific-misconduct
  • Brainard, J. (2018). Rethinking retractions. Science, 362, 390-393. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390 PMid:30361352 Campos-Varela, I., Villaverde-Castañeda, R., and Ruano-Raviña, A. (2020). Retraction of publications: A study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34, 430-434. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.05.008 PMid:31530483
  • Chen, W., Xing, Q.-R. Wang, H. , and Wang, T. (2017). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics, 144, 217–227. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-017-2565-x COPE. (2019). Retraction guidelines. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/ retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf
  • Dal-Ré, R., and Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of Medical Genetics, 56, 734–740. https:// doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137 PMid:31300549 PMCid:PMC6860402
  • Elango, B., Kozak, M., and Rajendran, P. (2019). Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics, 119, 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y
  • Elango, B. (2021). Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics, 126, 3965–3981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03895-1 PMid:33716353 PMCid:PMC7937359
  • Faggion, C. M., Ware, R. S., Bakas, N., and Wasiak, J. (2018). An analysis of retractions of dental publications. Journal of Dentistry, 79, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdent.2018.09.002 PMid:30205129
  • Fang, F. C., and Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79, 3855–3859. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11 PMid:21825063 PMCid:PMC3187237
  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., and Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109 PMid:23027971 PMCid:PMC3479492
  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, Article e5738. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 PMid:19478950 PMCid:PMC2685008
  • Grey, A., Avenell, A., and Bolland, M. (2022). Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group. Accountability in Research, 29, 347–378. https://doi.org/10.10 80/08989621.2021.1920409 PMid:33882262
  • Grieneisen, M. L., and Zhang, M. (2012). A Comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7, Article e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0044118 PMid:23115617 PMCid:PMC3480361
  • Ho, Y.-S. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles in materials science. Current Science, 107, 1565–1572.
  • Lei, L., and Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of wos retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1409–1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7 PMid:28889329
  • Liu, X., and Chen, X. (2018). Journal retractions: Some unique features of research misconduct in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.3138/ jsp.49.3.02
  • Misra, D. P., Ravindran, V., Wakhlu, A., Sharma, A., Agarwal, V., and Negi, V. S. (2017). Plagiarism: A viewpoint from India. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32, 1734–1735. https:// doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1734 PMid:28960022 PMCid:PMC5639050
  • Moradi, S., and Janavi, E. (2018). A scientometrics study of iranian retracted papers. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management, 33, 1805–1824.
  • Mousavi, T., and Abdollahi, M. (2020). A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences. DARU, 28, 359–369. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40199-020-00332-1 PMid:32072484 PMCid:PMC7214560
  • Moylan, E. C., and Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. British Medical Journal Open, 6, Article e012047. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2016-012047 PMid:27881524 PMCid:PMC5168538
  • Palla, I. A., Singson, M., and Thiyagarajan, S. (2020). A comparative analysis of retracted papers in Health Sciences from China and India. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 401–416. https://doi. org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1754804 PMid:32279538
  • Parasuraman, S., Raveendran, R., and Ahmed, K. M. (2015). Violation of publication ethics in manuscripts: Analysis and perspectives. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 6, 94–97. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976- 500X.155487 PMid:25969657 PMCid:PMC4419256
  • Rai, R., and Sabharwal, S. (2017). Retracted publications in orthopaedics: Prevalence, characteristics, and trends. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 99, Article e44. https:// doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01116 PMid:28463926
  • Ribeiro, M. D., and Vasconcelos, S. M. (2018). Retractions covered by retraction watch in the 2013-2015 period: Prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114, 719– 734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
  • Retraction Watch Database. (2022). Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons. Retrieved on 07 15, 2022, Available at: https://retractionwatch.com/ retraction-watch-database-user-guide/retraction-watchdatabase- user-guide-appendix-b-reasons/
  • Shimray, S. R. (2022). Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19. Accountability in Research, 30, 393–406. https://doi.org/10. 1080/08989621.2021.2014327 PMid:34856823
  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., and Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50, 532–535. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532 PMid:20017220 PMCid:PMC2802086
  • Wang, T. Xing, Q.-R. Wang, H., and Chen, W. (2019). Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6 PMid:29516389
  • Wasiak, J., Hamilton, D. G., Foroudi, F., and Faggion, C. M. (2018). Surveying retracted studies and notices within the field of radiation oncology. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 102, 660–665. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.06.028 PMid:29964101
  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., and Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 PMid:17431139
  • Xu, S., and Hu, G. (2021). A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction. Accountability in Research, 29, 512–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621. 2021.1952870 PMid:34228942

Abstract Views: 67

PDF Views: 3




  • Research Misconduct: A Comprehensive Examination of Retracted Publications in Biomedical Literature

Abstract Views: 67  |  PDF Views: 3

Authors

Somipam R. Shimray
Department of Library and Information Science (DLIS), School of Information Science and Technology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow - 226025, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract


The study aims to examine retracted articles in the biomedical literature and inspect the characteristics of retracted papers. The PubMed database was searched for retracted articles from 2012 to 2022. Four hundred twenty-one retracted articles were identified and used to examine retraction characteristics, publishers, the impact factor of retracted articles, and reasons for retraction. China published more than one-third of the retracted articles. Four authors wrote 16.86 per cent of the retracted papers. Springer has the highest retraction rate. The retraction rate has been increasing since 2012. Of 421, 364 (86.46 per cent) had an IF (Journal Citation Reports). Reasons for retraction include plagiarism, fake peer review, duplication of an article, concerns/issues about data/error in data, error in analyses, error in methods, notice-limited or no information lack of IRB/IACUC approval, concerns/issues about referencing/attributions, lack of approval from the third party, lack of approval from author and author withdrawn. These findings suggest a need for a strict and more deliberate role of editors, reviewers, institutions and governments to emphasize the importance of avoiding research wrongdoing. This study reflects the erroneous mistakes made by the academic community to get their work published.

Keywords


Biomedical Literature, Journal Impact Factor, Research Misconduct, Retracted Publications, Reasons for Retraction, Retracted Papers.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17821/srels%2F2023%2Fv60i6%2F171172