Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Abstract

BackgroundThe number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.Methods and FindingsWe examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.

What is open peer review? A systematic review

“…Indeed, Fang and Casadevall found that the frequency of retraction is strongly correlated with the journal impact factor ( Fang & Casadevall, 2011). Whatever the cause, recent sharp rises in the number of retracted scientific publications ( Steen et al , 2013) testify that peer review sometimes fails in its role as the gatekeeper of science, allowing errors to enter the literature. Peer review’s other role, of filtering the best work into the best journals, also seems to fail.…”

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

“…The issue is that, ultimately, this uncertainty in standards and implementation can, at least in part, potentially lead to widespread failures in research quality and integrity ( Ioannidis, 2005; Jefferson et al , 2002), and even the rise of formal retractions in extreme cases ( Steen et al , 2013). Issues resulting from peer review failure range from simple gate-keeping errors, based on differences in opinion of the perceived impact of research, to failing to detect fraudulent or incorrect work, which then enters the scientific record ( Baxt et al , 1998; Gøtzsche, 1989; Haug, 2015; Moore et al , 2017; Pocock et al , 1987; Schroter et al , 2004; Smith, 2006).…”

Perspectives from a water research institute on Knowledge Management for Sustainable Water Management

“…These concerns are not limited to open access journals, as illustrated by increases in retractions [Steen et al, 2013]. Forums for post-publication review are provided by Faculty of 1000 (F1000, http://f1000.com/), which focuses on biology and medicine, and PubPeer Copernicus Publication, which provides platforms that host unsolicited public comments in parallel to reviews solicited by an editor (http://publications.copernicus.org/services/public_peer_review.html).…”