A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Nogueira, Túlio Eduardo; Gonçalves, Andréia Souza; Leles, Cláudio Rodrigues; Batista, Aline Carvalho; Costa, Luciane Rezende

doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Article retractions arising from research misconduct accounted for 37.5% of retractions, with plagiarism as the most frequently reported reason. The issue of retractions occurring as a result of misconduct is not isolated to the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, with studies in medical oncology, general and plastic surgery, dentistry, orthopaedics, radiology, and neurosurgery demonstrating similar findings . Our results indicated a median H ‐index of 19.0 for the senior author, suggesting that research practices leading to article retraction were not the result of inexperience in publishing …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…The issue of retractions occurring as a result of misconduct is not isolated to the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, with studies in medical oncology, general and plastic surgery, dentistry, orthopaedics, radiology, and neurosurgery demonstrating similar findings. 4,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Our results indicated a median H-index of 19.0 for the senior author, suggesting that research practices leading to article retraction were not the result of inexperience in publishing. 10 Interestingly, retractions were disproportionately higher within gynaecological oncology, accounting for 43% of the withdrawn articles in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

Chambers

Michener

Falcone

2019

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine the number of retracted articles and to examine the reasons for retraction within the obstetrics and gynaecology literature. Design Retrospective review of the PubMed database. Setting N/A. Population Obstetrics and gynaecology articles published from indexation until June 2018. Methods Articles were identified using keywords for retracted articles in obstetrics and gynaecology. Descriptive statistics were performed. Main outcome measures Incidence of article retraction, the reasons given for retraction, and article demographics. Results A total of 176 articles were identified with a median time to retraction of 2 years; over three‐quarters were retracted within the last decade (n = 136; 77.3%). The median journal impact factor was 2.5 (range of 0.26–52.67). Subspecialties with the highest number of retractions were gynaecological oncology (n = 76; 43.2%), gynaecology (n = 36; 20.5%), and obstetrics (n = 31; 17.6%). Among 176 first authors, 18 authors (10.2%) had two or more retracted articles. Clinical research articles accounted for approximately one‐half of the retracted articles (n = 87; 49.4%). Among the clinical studies, 10.2% (n = 18) were randomised control trials, 16.5% (n = 29) were prospective trials and 13.1% (n = 23) were retrospective studies. Plagiarism (n = 40; 22.7%) and data falsification (n = 37; 21.0%) were the most common reasons given for retraction. Conclusion Article retraction within the obstetrics and gynaecology literature is increasing. The most frequently cited reasons for article retractions were plagiarism, errors in data, fabricated results, article duplication, and compromised peer review. Consequences of article retractions to patient care and the scientific community can be significant. The thorough screening of manuscripts prior to publication should be prioritised. Tweetable abstract The rate of retraction in obstetrics and gynaecology is increasing; the most common reason for retraction is plagiarism.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

Chambers

Michener

Falcone

2019

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "honest error/mistake" is frequently used, but it is not clear how journals or publishers establish if an error was honest or purposeful [9]. The reported reasons for retraction are slightly different among medical specialties but misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or authorship issues are most frequently reported (orthopedics [10], dentistry [11,12], neurosurgery [13], cancer research [14], emergency medicine [15], radiology [16], nursing and midwifery research [17]). Systematic manipulation of the peer review processes by ensuring that a specific article passes the peer review in return for a fee paid by the authors, or for boosting their own publications, and inappropriate authorship, including offering authorship of the article in return for a fee are lately reported [18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiologyimaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

show abstract

“…The method that was used to conduct this research has been utilized in similar research projects (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13).…”

Section: Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cokol et al found that, over time, the frequency at which scienti c publications are retracted is increasing (7). Several studies in multiple medical elds have sought to investigate and describe the trends, the global distribution, and the characteristics of these retractions to obtain a deeper understanding of the effect of retractions and the real magnitude of misconduct in medical research (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13). For example, Bozzo et al investigated the pattern of oncology publications retraction (8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory Analysis of Retracted Cardiovascular Diseases Publications

Badreldin¹,

Ghawaa²,

Alshehri³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a lack of studies that examine the nature of retraction in the discipline of cardiovascular diseases. The objective of this research was, therefore, to report comprehensively on the nature and trend of retracted cardiovascular disease publications.Methods Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Retraction Watch databases were utilized to identify retracted publications on cardiovascular diseases from a database-specific inception date to June 10, 2019.Results A total of 568 publications met our eligibility criteria. With regard to the first author’s continent of affiliation, the majority of retracted publications 251 (44.1%) originated from Asia. In 2000, the number of retracted publications began to trend up, and it peaked in 2015, with 76 (13.4%) publications being retracted that year. The mean number of times a publication was cited prior to retraction was 37 times, with a standard deviation of 76. Basic science publications and animal studies represented almost 43% of the total retracted publications relating to cardiovascular disease. Misconduct was the main reason for retractions in 249 (43.3%) publications, followed by scientific error by authors, 215 (37.8%). Almost 61% of the retracted studies were present in their intact form, with no watermark indicating retraction. Conclusions The trend of retracting publications within the field of cardiovascular diseases is increasing. Certain papers are still being cited even after retraction. Moreover, a significant number of retracted publications are still present with no watermark indicating retraction. The consequences of the continued usage of these retracted publications could be detrimental and harmful.

show abstract

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Cited by 35 publications

References 27 publications

Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Exploratory Analysis of Retracted Cardiovascular Diseases Publications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About