Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

Huh, Sun; Kim, Soo Young; Cho, Hye-Min

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163588

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Estimates in the broader literature vary by discipline and country and are often hampered by incomplete information, but typically suggest that these reasons for retractions account for well over 50% of the total, whereas retractions due to issues with data, methods or results rarely comprise more than 25% of the total (e.g. [17][18][19][20][21][22] .…”

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Fanelli

Moher

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every year, several hundred publications are retracted due to fabrication and falsification of data or plagiarism and other breeches of research integrity and ethics. Despite considerable research on this phenomenon, the extent to which a retraction requires revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs – which we define as the epistemic impact - is unknown. We collected a representative sample of recently retracted studies that had been included in recent meta-analyses, and compared the summary effect size of these meta analyses with and without the refracted studies. On average, the retractions had occurred about six years prior to the publication of the corresponding meta-analyses.Our results suggest that retractions have varying impacts depending on their causes. In particular, removing from an analysis a study retracted because of issues with data, methods or results, led to a statistically significant reduction of the estimated effect size. Assuming that the results of these retracted studies are completely false, then the meta-analyses that had included them had overestimated the summary effect sizes by, averaging across effect size metrics, 30% (median, 13%). However, retractions due to plagiarism or other issues not related to data, methods or results had no impact on the conclusions of meta-analyses.Since retractions due to plagiarism or other non-data related issues typically constitute over 75% of total retractions, our results suggest that the epistemic impact of most retractions is likely to be null. However, our results also suggest that retractions due to issues with data, methods or results should be accompanied by a revision of relevant meta-analyses, and by extension a downwards revision of prior scientific beliefs.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Fanelli

Moher

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, duplicate publication was the most common reason (57.0%) for retraction in 111 papers that were published and retracted in KoreaMed from 1990 to January 2016 [6]. This result is markedly different from Western studies, which reported that around 15.8% to 17% of retractions were due to duplicate publication [7,8].…”

Section: Duplicate Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors

Kim¹,

Han²

2020

Sci Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

show abstract

“…The second possibility is that the authors knew that the articles had been retracted but cited them for other reasons. In the Korean medical literature, the most common reason for retraction is duplicate publication [3]; therefore, an author may cite a retracted article without any doubt about the scientific validity of the article, which results in a positive citation. How can we efficiently reduce post-retraction citations?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Out of 217,839 articles in KoreaMed published from 1990 to January 2016, the publication type of 111 articles was retraction (0.051%). The reasons for retractions included duplicate publication (57.0%), plagiarism (8.8%), scientific error (4.4%), author dispute (3.5%), and other (5.3%); the reasons were unstated or unclear in 20.2% of cases [3]. In KoreaMed retractions due to honest error accounted for a small proportion (4.4%) of cases [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification

Kim¹,

Yi²,

Cho³

et al. 2019

Sci Ed

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: It aimed to investigate how many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited in both the Scopus and the Korea Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) databases and to investigate whether the frequency of post-retraction citations was different according to the presence of a retraction mark. Methods: Retracted articles from the KoreaMed database were collected on January 28, 2016. Scopus and KoMCI were searched for post-retraction citations, which were defined as citations 1 year after the retraction, excluding retraction-related citations. Results: The 114 retracted articles were found in KoreaMed. The proportion of retracted articles in KoreaMed, the Korean medical journal database, through January 2016 was 0.04% (114/256,000). On the journal homepage, a retraction mark was present for 49 of the 114 retracted articles. Of the 114 retracted articles, 45 were cited in Scopus 176 times. Of the 176 citations, 109 (of 36 retracted articles) were post-retraction citations. The number of citations in KoMCI, except for citations of retraction notices, was 33 (of 14 retracted articles). Of those citations, the number of post-retraction citations in KoMCI was 14 (of 8 retracted articles). The presence of a retraction mark did not influence post-retraction citations (P > 0.05). Post-retraction citations were frequent in the range of 1 to 3 years. Conclusion: Post-retraction citations that were found in both Scopus and the KoMCI occurred frequently for retracted articles in KoreaMed. Adoption of Crossmark is recommended as one choice to prevent post-retraction citations.

show abstract

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

Cited by 23 publications

References 11 publications

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors

How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About