Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors

Campos‐Varela, Isabel; Ruano-Raviña, Alberto

doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009

Cited by 72 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was a quasi-experimental, pre-post evaluation study in which the intervention consisted of an article's retraction for reasons of misconduct, and the unit of analysis was the article published and subsequently retracted. We selected original research The characteristics of retracted studies included have been described in other previous reports (11,17). All types of publications that were not original research papers were excluded, as were those retracted for any reason other than misconduct.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Candal-Pedreira

Ruano-Raviña

Fernández

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyze the impact of retraction on citations received by retracted papers in two-time frames: during a post-retraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total post-retraction period. Results: The results indicated an increase in post-retraction citations when compared with citations received pre-retraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, post-retraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05). Conclusions: The results indicate that retraction of articles has no impact on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction. More effective mechanisms should be established to prevent the citation of retracted articles in scientific papers. Methods: Quasi-experimental, pre-post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in Medline fulfilled the exclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in Pubmed from January 2013 through December 2016 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers (pre-retraction) were specifically analyzed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Candal-Pedreira

Ruano-Raviña

Fernández

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the overwhelming data of misconduct‐related retractions (Campos‐Varela & Ruano‐Raviña, ), one can understand the tendency to automatically connect a retracted article with some fraudulent practices (Smart, ). For many researchers, a retracted article, whether due to honest errors or deliberate misconduct, represents a sign of wrongdoing and leaves a permanent stain on their academic records.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Vuong

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While researchers with retracted papers – publications that are withdrawn because of significant errors or scientific misconduct – carry a permanent stain on their publishing records, understanding the causes and initiators of such retractions can shed a different light on the matter. This paper, based on a random sample of 2,046 retracted papers, which were published between 1975 and 2019, extracted from Retraction Watch and the websites of major publishers, shows that 53% of the retraction notices do not specify who initiated the retraction. Nearly 10% of the retraction notes either omit or do not contain information related to reasons for retractions. Furthermore, most of the retracted papers in our sample have no limitation section; those who do are commonly unhelpful or irrelevant. The results carry three implications for scientific transparency: retraction notices need to be more informative; limitation sections ought to be a required and even an open section of all published articles; and finally, promoting ‘heroic acts’ in science can positively change the current publishing culture.

show abstract

“…Therefore, author-level metrics obtained through this search were excluded, as they did not correspond to metrics provided by other databases. The authors with the highest number of publications were searched in Google Scholar database, employing "Publish or Perish" (6th edition) software [11] The network maps employed to present results of this analysis were created using the VOS viewer software (build 1.6.9). Retracted papers where obtained by retracted-watch database.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Simopoulou

Sfakianoudis²,

Maziotis

et al. 2020

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the methodology of bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: An all-inclusive analysis of the most bibliometrically highlighted scientific contributions regarding the cornerstones of clinical embryology was performed employing the Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases, between 1978–2018. An analysis of the number of publications, respective citations and h-index, g-index, along with m-quotient is presented. The top 30 contributing authors for each distinctive area of research are listed. An attempt at visualizing the yearly published articles, clusters, and collaborations of authors, along with the geographic origin of publications, is also presented. Results: Combining all searches and keywords yielded 54,522 results. In the Scopus database, employing the keyword “In Vitro Fertilization” yielded 41,292 results. The publications of the top five authors in each research field were analytically presented and compared to the total number of publications for each respective field. The research field of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/Screening/Testing was allocated the highest percentage of publications produced by the top five authors. Regarding journal bibliometrics, based on the year 2017 metrics, there are only 29 journals according to WoS that refer to “Reproductive Biology”, ranking it 187th among 235 disciplines. The USA produced the highest number of publications (12,537). Conclusion: Results indicate an explosion of interest published in the literature regarding the field of clinical embryology. Further analysis on collaborations and the trends involved should be of added value as productivity between countries varies significantly. This may guide researchers, in vitro fertilization professionals, and prospective authors during literature search, while proving useful regarding manuscript design and concurring on keywords and abstract content.

show abstract

Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors

Cited by 72 publications

References 22 publications

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About