Correction and retraction practices in library and information science journals

Abstract

Retraction of scholarly publications ensures that unqualified knowledge is purged from the scientific community. However, there appears to be little understanding about how this is practiced among library and information science (LIS) journals. Hence, this study investigated the correction and retraction practices of LIS journals. Journals included in the Web of Science’s information science and library science subject category were selected for the study and the characteristics of the articles corrected or retracted in those journals between 1996 and 2016 were examined. Findings show that there were 517 corrections and five retractions in LIS journals during the period. Most of the corrections made to articles in LIS journals were minor while the reasons for article retraction included plagiarism, duplication, irreproducible results and methodological errors. Our findings also reveal that on average it took about 587 days for an article to be retracted while some of the retracted articles continued to be cited after retraction. The study concluded that the average number of errors per correction was lower than what had been observed in medical journals while some of the retracted articles continued to receive positive post-retraction citations. It also recommended the inclusion of a check on the validity of literature cited by authors at the review stage as part of the quality control mechanism by publishers of LIS journals.

Retraction of papers authored by Yuhji Saitoh – Beyond the Fujii phenomenon

“…Across different specialties, sizeable numbers of retraction notices do not comply with the guidelines of COPE. [11819] Except one, all the journals evaluated in our study are members of COPE. It is disconcerting that even being a member, a majority of retraction notices failed to comply the guidelines of COPE.…”

“…The better a database is in tracking retraction notices, the more easily retracted article can be identified. [19] We observed that search strategy using the name of author and the Publication Type Retraction of Publication failed to retrieve many relevant data. COPE suggests the use of name of author and title of the article in the heading of the retraction notice.…”

“…But in many instances, such articles get citations, many being positive citations. [1921] Such instances have tremendous ramifications. [22] Identification of retracted material is of unconditional importance.…”

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

“…Corroborating the results of this study, Brainard (2018), who evaluated retractions between 1997 and 2015, pointed out that most retractions involved scientific fraud (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), in addition to false peer review. The study by Ajiferuke and Adekannbi (2020) pointed out that articles in the library and information sciences are withdrawn mainly due to plagiarism, duplication, nonreproducible results, and errors in data. Within anesthesiology, Nair et al (2020) identified that the most common motive for withdrawals was fraud (49.4%), followed by lack of appropriate ethical approval (28%).…”

“…Based on these studies, the current situation in relation to retractions has at least four relevant characteristics. First, the retraction rate has increased since the first published retraction in the 1970s (Ajiferuke & Adekannbi, 2020;Brainard, 2018;Fang et al, 2012;Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012;He, 2013;Lei & Zhang, 2018;Resnik, 2015;Tang et al, 2020;Vuong et al, 2020). This growth is linked to the number of journals that began to retract articles, and not necessarily an increase in scientific misconduct (Brainard, 2018;Fanelli et al, 2015).…”