Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis.

BackgroundMeasures to ensure research integrity have been widely discussed due to the social, economic and scientific impact of research integrity. In the past few years, financial support for health research in emerging countries has steadily increased, resulting in a growing number of scientific publications. These achievements, however, have been accompanied by a rise in retracted publications followed by concerns about the quality and reliability of such publications.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to investigate the profile of medical and life sciences research retractions from authors affiliated with Brazilian academic institutions. The chronological trend between publication and retraction date, reasons for the retraction, citation of the article after the retraction, study design, and the number of retracted publications by author and affiliation were assessed. Additionally, the quality, availability and accessibility of data regarding retracted papers from the publishers are described.MethodsTwo independent reviewers searched for articles that had been retracted since 2004 via PubMed, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) and Google Scholar databases. Indexed keywords from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS) in Portuguese, English or Spanish were used. Data were also collected from the Retraction Watch website (www.retractionwatch.com). This study was registered with the PROSPERO systematic review database (CRD42017071647).ResultsA final sample of 65 articles was retrieved from 55 different journals with reported impact factors ranging from 0 to 32.86, with a median value of 4.40 and a mean of 4.69. The types of documents found were erratum (1), retracted articles (3), retracted articles with a retraction notice (5), retraction notices with erratum (3), and retraction notices (45). The assessment of the Retraction Watch website added 8 articles that were not identified by the search strategy using the bibliographic databases. The retracted publications covered a wide range of study designs. Experimental studies (40) and literature reviews (15) accounted for 84.6% of the retracted articles. Within the field of health and life sciences, medical science was the field with the largest number of retractions (34), followed by biological sciences (17). Some articles were retracted for at least two distinct reasons (13). Among the retrieved articles, plagiarism was the main reason for retraction (60%). Missing data were found in 57% of the retraction notices, which was a limitation to this review. In addition, 63% of the articles were cited after their retraction.ConclusionPublications are not retracted solely for research misconduct but also for honest error. Nevertheless, considering authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, this review concluded that most of the retracted health and life sciences publications were retracted due to research misconduct. Because the number of publications is the most valued indicator of scientific productivity for funding and career progression purposes, a systematic effort from the national research councils, funding agencies, universities and scientific journals is needed to avoid an escalating trend of research misconduct. More investigations are needed to comprehend the underlying factors of research misconduct and its increasing manifestation.

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970–2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed. Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China. Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Impact Factors and Other Measures of a Journal's Influence

RETRACTION:Retraction date: 01.04.2021Reason for retraction: Duplicate publications in several journalsAdditional information on the reasons for retractions: The retraction was issued by the request of the Russian Journal of Physiology editorial board. Reason fo retraction - personal statement from the author on the existence of the duplicate publication: Koryak Y.A. Architectural and functional specifics of the human triceps surae muscle in vivo and its adaptation to microgravity // Journal of Applied Physiology. 2019. Т. 126. № 4. С. 880-893. The aim of this study was to quantitatively describe the relationships between joint angles and muscle architecture [lengths (Lf) and angles (f) of fascicles] of human triceps surae [medial (MG) and lateral (LG) gastrocnemius and soleus (SOL) muscles] in vivo for three cosmonaut after of prolonged exposure to microgravity (G). Sagittal sonographs of MG, LG, SOL were taken at ankle was positioned at 15 (dorsiflexion), 0 (neutral position), +15, and +30 (plantarflexion), with the knee at 90 at rest and after G. At each position, longitudinal ultrasonic images of the MG and LG and SOL were obtained while the cosmonauts was relaxed from which Lf andf with respect to the aponeuroses were determined. After G plantarflexor force declined (26 %). In the passive condition, Lf changed from 45, 53, and 39 mm (knee, 0, ankle, -15) to 26, 33, and 28 mm (knee, 90 ankle, 30) for MG, LG, and SOL, respectively. Different Lf and f, and their changes bу contraction, might bе related to differences in force-producing capabilities of the muscles and elastic characteristics of tendons and aponeuroses. The three heads of the triceps surae muscle substantially differ in architecture, which probably reflects their functional roles.

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the scientific record and alerts readers when a study contains unreliable or flawed data. Such data may arise from error or research misconduct. Studies examining the landscape of retracted publications provide insight into the extent of unreliable data and its effect on a medical discipline. We aimed to explore the extent and characteristics of retracted publications in pain research. We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Retraction Watch databases to December 31, 2022. We included retracted articles that (1) investigated mechanisms of painful conditions, (2) tested treatments that aimed to reduce pain, or (3) measured pain as an outcome. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the included data. We included 389 pain articles published between 1993 and 2022 and retracted between 1996 and 2022. There was a significant upward trend in the number of retracted pain articles over time. Sixty-six percent of articles were retracted for reasons relating to misconduct. The median (interquartile range) time from article publication to retraction was 2 years (0.7-4.3). The time to retraction differed by reason for retraction, with data problems, comprising data falsification, duplication, and plagiarism, resulting in the longest interval (3 [1.2-5.2] years). Further investigations of retracted pain articles, including exploration of their fate postretraction, are necessary to determine the impact of unreliable data on pain research.

Retraction of journal papers containing falsified data plays a central role in “correcting” the scientific record. Of 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, Nath et al. classified 62% as retracted as a result of mistake, 27% because of deliberate falsification or fabrication of data, and 11% without a clear reason for retraction [1]. There is evidence that retracted papers continue to be cited without reference to the retraction: Budd et al. found that 235 retracted articles were cited 2,034 times after retraction notices. Examination of 299 of these citations showed that only 19 referred to the retraction [2]. Similarly, Neale et al.'s analysis of 102 articles from PubMed showed that many of these papers were subsequently cited by other researchers who were unaware that the papers had been affected by scientific misconduct [3]. Limitations in the processes for recording retractions have been noted elsewhere, and the responsibilities of authors, journal editors, and research institutions have been highlighted [4, 5]. Following the Poehlman case in 2005, where ten articles based on fabricated data by that author were retracted, Sox and Rennie identified several opportunities for publishers to prevent citation of retracted papers [5]. These included journal editors checking the reference lists of submitted manuscripts on the National Library of Medicine website, retraction notices being linked to retracted articles on journal websites, retraction notices being prominently displayed in electronic journals, and free access to the full text of retraction notices being facilitated. While undertaking a systematic review on post-surgery analgesia [6], the authors realized that several of the papers identified for possible inclusion were by Scott S. Reuben, who was at that point being investigated for producing papers based on falsified data [7]. Twenty-one papers or abstracts authored by Reuben were under question at that time, and there was considerable publicity, while official retractions began to be made by journals. Although the presence of this publicity made it easy to weed out those articles from the systematic review, the situation offered an opportunity to conduct a case study to investigate whether databases and journals record notices of article retractions in a way that ensures they can be easily identified, even in the absence of such public discussion.

Vexatious and euphemistic affairs in retractions of scientific publications: A pilot study

Background and aim of the work:Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.Methods:A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a “retracted article” message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.Results:Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.Conclusions:Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Tuberculosis research plays a crucial role in understanding and responding to the necessities of people with this disease, yet the integrity of this research is compromised by frequent retractions. Identifying and analyzing the main reasons for retraction of tuberculosis articles is essential for improving research practices and ensuring reliable scientific output. In this study, we conducted an advanced systematic literature review of retracted original articles on Tuberculosis, utilizing databases such as Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, LILACS, and the Retraction Watch Database webpage. We found that falsification and plagiarism were the most frequent reasons for retraction, although 16% of the retracted articles did not declare the drivers behind the retraction. Almost half of the retracted studies received external funding, affecting not only those specific studies but future funding opportunities for this research field. Stronger measures of research integrity are needed to prevent misconduct in this vulnerable population.

This study examines trends in retracted Indian business research articles from 2014 to 2023, focusing on various aspects such as the number of retractions, geographical distribution, associated journals and publishers, retraction timelines, reasons for retraction, and the citation impact before and after retraction. Using Scientometric tools, 79 retracted articles were analysed from the Retraction Watch and Scopus databases. The findings reveal a rising trend in retractions, predominantly due to fake peer reviews and plagiarism. Tamil Nadu recorded the highest number of retractions (n=44), with the “Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing” standing out with 17 retractions. Springer emerged as the leading publisher, accounting for 41 retractions. Most retractions occurred within a year of publication, and the articles continue to receive citations even after being retracted. The findings of this study will be beneficial for academic institutions, journal editors, and policymakers aiming to enhance research integrity and mitigate unethical practices in scholarly publishing.

PurposeRetraction is the removal of published material due to flaws in research that cannot be corrected. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of all retracted literature in Ear Nose and Throat to understand the characteristics of retraction and the citations of retracted literature.MethodsThe Retraction Watch, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched to yield relevant retractions. Two independent authors performed abstract and full-text screening. Non-relevant texts, articles in non-English languages, and articles that were neither published (protocols) or retracted (expression of concern) were excluded.ResultsWe found 225 retractions in Ear Nose and Throat literature from 1992 to 2023. The number of retractions increased with time, and the average time-to-retraction was 1 year (range 0–29). Most articles were retracted due to misconduct (72%). In total, 191/225 of retractions were signposted with a retraction notice; 90.6% of notices were linked to the original manuscript; 96.9% specified the reason for retraction and 100% were freely accessible. Publications were cited more after retraction (median 2, range 0–215 vs median 0, range 0–78, Z –1.78, p = 0.075), however this was not significant, and appeared to improve with a shorter retraction time (RS 0.67, p < 0.001).ConclusionRetractions, although rare, are increasing across all scientific disciplines. Our data suggests that retractions are both efficiently and transparently publicised in the Ear Nose and Throat Literature. Investigators should be veracious when conducting their own research and regularly appraise manuscripts to ensure that misinformation is not perpetuated, remaining aware that retracted articles continue to be cited.

Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals

Misuse of Journal Impact Factors in Scientific Assessment

To determine how commonly articles are retracted on the basis of unintentional mistakes, and whether these articles differ from those retracted for scientific misconduct in authorship, funding, type of study, publication, and time to retraction. All retractions of English language publications indexed in MEDLINE between 1982 and 2002 were extracted. Two reviewers categorised the reasons for retraction of each article as misconduct (falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism) or unintentional error (mistakes in sampling, procedures, or data analysis; failure to reproduce findings; accidental omission of information about methods or data analysis). Of the 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, 107 (27.1%) were retracted because of scientific misconduct, 244 (61.8%) because of unintentional errors, and 44 (11.1%) could not be categorised. Compared with articles retracted because of misconduct, articles with unintentional mistakes were more likely to have multiple authors, no reported funding source, and to be published in frequently cited journals. They were more likely to be retracted by the author(s) of the article, and the retraction was more likely to occur more promptly (mean, 2.0 years; 95% CI, 1.8-2.2) than articles withdrawn because of misconduct (mean, 3.3 years; 95% CI, 2.7-3.9) (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Retractions in the biomedical literature were more than twice as likely to result from unintentional mistakes than from scientific misconduct. The different characteristics of articles retracted for misconduct and for mistakes reflect distinct causes and, potentially, distinct solutions.

Recent Outcomes Research in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review of Publication Year 2023 Additions to the Helicopter Outcomes Assessment Research Database