Science Editing

Original Articles

Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Tung Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34-44. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187

9,267 View
274 Download
19 Web of Science
18 Crossref

Purpose: Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
Methods
We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
Results
Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuki Furuse
Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
Journal of Data and Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Streamlining the self-correction process: a review of the use of replication research by organizational scholars
Przemysław G. Hensel, Agnieszka Kacprzak
Journal of Organizational Change Management.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
Somipam R. Shimray
Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393. CrossRef
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339. CrossRef
Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881. CrossRef
Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261. CrossRef
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
Publications.2022; 10(2): 18. CrossRef
Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181. CrossRef
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871. CrossRef
Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef

How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification: Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):122-127. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.172

6,996 View
127 Download
8 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing
Peiling Wang, Jing Su
Journal of Information Science.2024; 50(1): 17. CrossRef
Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations
Xiaojuan Liu, Chenlin Wang, Dar-Zen Chen, Mu-Hsuan Huang
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(3): 101304. CrossRef
Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice
Geoff Frampton, Lois Woods, David Alexander Scott, Eleanor Ochodo
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(10): e0258935. CrossRef
Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
Tzu-Kun Hsiao, Jodi Schneider
Quantitative Science Studies.2021; 2(4): 1144. CrossRef
Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study
Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Esteve Fernández, Jorge Ramos, Isabel Campos-Varela, Mónica Pérez-Ríos
BMJ Global Health.2020; 5(11): e003719. CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data
Jodi Schneider, Di Ye, Alison M. Hill, Ashley S. Whitehorn
Scientometrics.2020; 125(3): 2877. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search