Subject(s)
N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , United States Food and Drug Administration , Humans , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/drug therapy , United States , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Hallucinogens/therapeutic useABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed. RESULTS: This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Periodicals as Topic , PubMed , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Journal Impact Factor , Scientific MisconductABSTRACT
The paper entitled "Risk factors for poor ovarian response in patients receiving in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer" by Chen et al., which was published in Minerva Surgery 2023 June;78(3):303-4, has been retracted by the Publisher upon the authors' request; they asked for a retraction because the paper contains faulty data.
Subject(s)
Embryo Transfer , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Female , Risk Factors , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy , Retraction of Publication as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase. DESIGN: Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status. SETTING: All work was done electronically and retrospectively. SUBJECTS: The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals. CONCLUSIONS: Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Periodicals as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/trends , Bibliometrics , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics , Journal Impact Factor , Biomedical Research/trends , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/trends , Retraction of Publication as Topic , SARS-CoV-2Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Scientific Misconduct , Humans , Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/standards , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research/trends , History, 21st Century , Research Personnel/ethics , Research Personnel/standards , Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Research Personnel/trends , Scientific Misconduct/statistics & numerical data , Scientific Misconduct/trendsABSTRACT
The article "Autoantibodies detection in patients affected by autoimmune retinopathies", by M.R. Ceccarini, M.C. Medori, K. Dhuli, S. Tezzele, G. Bonetti, C. Micheletti, P.E. Maltese, S. Cecchin, K. Donato, L. Colombo, L. Rossetti, G. Staurenghi, A.P. Salvetti, M. Oldani, L. Ziccardi, D. Marangoni, G. Iarossi, B. Falsini, G. Placidi, F. D'Esposito, F. Viola, M. Nassisi, G. Leone, L. Cimino, L. De Simone, V. Mastrofilippo, T. Beccari, M. Bertelli, published in Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2023; 27 (6 Suppl): 57-63-DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202312_34690-PMID: 38112948 has been retracted by the Editor in Chief for the following reasons. Following some concerns raised on PubPeer, the Editor in Chief has started an investigation to assess the validity of the results. The outcome of the investigation revealed that the manuscript presented major flaws in the following: - Issues with ethical approval - Undeclared conflict of interest In light of concerns regarding the potential manipulation of Supplementary Figure 2, the journal's inquiry has been unable to conclusively determine whether the alterations noted on PubPeer constitute figure manipulation. The investigation yielded divergent evaluations. However, given the aforementioned concerns, the Editor in Chief doubts the integrity of the findings presented and thus, has opted to retract the article. The authors disagree with this retraction. This article has been retracted. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/34690.
Subject(s)
Autoantibodies , Autoimmune Diseases , Humans , Autoantibodies/blood , Autoantibodies/immunology , Autoimmune Diseases/immunology , Autoimmune Diseases/diagnosis , Retinal Diseases/immunology , Retinal Diseases/diagnosis , Retraction of Publication as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Various studies regarding retractions of publications have determined the rate of retraction has increased in recent years. Although this trend may apply to any field, there is a paucity of literature exploring the publication of erroneous studies within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aims to identify trends in frequency and reasons for retraction of plastic and reconstructive surgery studies, with analysis of subspecialty and journals. METHODS: A database search was conducted for retracted papers within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The initial search yielded 2347 results, which were analyzed by two independent reviewers. 77 studies were jointly identified for data collection. RESULTS: The most common reasons for retractions were duplication (n = 20, 25.9 %), request of author (n = 15, 19.5 %), plagiarism (n = 9, 11.6 %), error (n = 9, 11.6 %), fraud (n = 2, 2.6 %), and conflict of interest (n = 1, 1.3 %). 15 were basic science studies (19.4 %), 58 were clinical science studies (75.3 %), and 4 were not categorized (5.2 %). Subspecialties of retracted papers were maxillofacial (n = 29, 37.7 %), reconstructive (n = 17, 22.0 %), wound healing (n = 8, 10.4 %), burn (n = 6, 7.8 %), esthetics (n = 5, 6.5 %), breast (n = 3, 3.9 %), and trauma (n = 1, 1.3 %). Mean impact factor was 2.9 and average time from publication to retraction was 32 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of retracted plastic surgery studies revealed a recent rise in frequency of retractions, spanning a wide spectrum of journals and subspecialties.
Subject(s)
Plastic Surgery Procedures , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Surgery, Plastic , Humans , Surgery, Plastic/trends , Plastic Surgery Procedures/trends , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Scientific Misconduct/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research , Plagiarism , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The retraction of articles stands as the most significant mechanism employed to uphold the integrity of science, particularly in flawed studies. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the reasons for article retractions in the field of emergency medicine and elucidate the problems arising from such retractions. The goal is to identify parameters in retracted articles that compromise scientific knowledge and raise awareness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retracted articles within the emergency medicine category were analyzed and assessed using the Web of Science database. The study sought to address the following questions: 1. In which year or years were the most articles retracted? 2. In which journals were the retracted articles published? 3. What is the distribution of topics in retracted articles? 4. What are the reasons for the retraction of articles? 5. What is the time difference and citation count between the publication and retraction years of the articles? RESULTS: The study delved into reasons for article retractions, types of retracted articles, and other relevant factors. A total of 61 retracted articles were examined and analyzed, revealing an increasing trend in the rate of article retractions over the years. The majority of retracted articles occurred in 2023, with the highest retraction rate identified in the "Emergency Medicine International" journal. On average, articles were retracted 356 days after publication. Reasons for retracted articles included concerns related to data, authorship issues, plagiarism, duplication, and biased or fraudulent peer review. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an examination of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine, highlighting a noteworthy increase in retractions due to various reasons. Despite retractions, it was observed that the citation counts of retracted articles increased. The growing number of retracted articles and frequent citations pose potential dangers from a scientific perspective, as citing retracted articles damages scientific integrity. The study underscores the importance of understanding the reasons for retracted articles and preventing the spread of such incidents in emergency medicine literature. The results, analyzed within various variables, indicate the need for further research and solutions, guiding future research efforts and contributing to the literature.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medicine , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Humans , Periodicals as Topic , Scientific Misconduct , Databases, Factual , BibliometricsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). CONCLUSION: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.
Subject(s)
Medical Oncology , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Scientific Misconduct , Humans , China , Scientific Misconduct/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Plagiarism , Bibliometrics , East Asian PeopleABSTRACT
When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.
Subject(s)
Neurosciences , Periodicals as Topic , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Neurosciences/methods , Neurosciences/standards , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Humans , Scientific Misconduct/ethics , Editorial PoliciesSubject(s)
Laboratories , Learning , Research Personnel , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Scientific Misconduct , Superconductivity , Academies and Institutes/standards , Laboratories/standards , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Research Personnel/ethics , Research Support as Topic/standards , Scientific Misconduct/ethics , Scientific Misconduct/legislation & jurisprudence , Scientific Misconduct/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature. METHODS: Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by 2 independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication. RESULTS: Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n = 70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n = 58), followed by plagiarism (n = 22), and peer review process manipulation (n = 16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (P = 0.01). China (n = 63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.