Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Sci Ed > Forthcoming articles > Article
Review
Bibliometric characteristics of retracted publications in pediatrics research: a systematic review
Zhi-Yi Yangorcid, Li-Li Yangorcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.351
Published online: December 11, 2024

Editorial Office of World Journal of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, China

Correspondence to Zhi-Yi Yang 3110102511@zju.edu.cn
• Received: August 19, 2024   • Accepted: December 11, 2024

Copyright © 2024 Korean Council of Science Editors

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 344 Views
  • 38 Download
  • Purpose
    In recent years, the number of retractions in biomedical literature has increased. Analyses of retracted publications can provide important information on the characteristics of retractions and may help reduce this trend. This study aimed to systematically analyze the time, source, citations, and reasons for retraction of pediatric research papers.
  • Methods
    A systematic review of retracted articles related to pediatrics was performed in PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception through December 31, 2023. Excluded from the review were articles unrelated to pediatric studies, conference proceedings, non-English articles, duplicates, and articles that could not be identified. The data extracted and analyzed included the title, publication year, retraction year, country, journal, impact factor, the party who raised the retraction, the reason for retraction, citation count, and the authors of the articles.
  • Results
    The interval between publication and retraction ranged from 0 to 45 years, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2023. China and the United States had the most retractions, and China had the highest rate of retraction. The proportion of retractions from China increased over time. Several journals published by Hindawi had many retractions compared to other journals. The most frequent reasons were publication issues, errors, and fraud/fabrication.
  • Conclusion
    This study provides a comprehensive overview of retracted articles in pediatric research. Our findings suggest that it is important to scrutinize the process of research and publication, to identify and counter research misconduct, and to make the instructions, procedures, and outcomes of publication more transparent for researchers, publishers and regulators.
Background
In recent years, there are increasing numbers of retracted articles in biomedical literature [1], dealing damage to the credibility of science. The publication containing inaccurate information in the medical literature may have a profound influence on clinical practice and further research [2]. Especially, some retracted articles are from reputable journals with many citations, and may continue to receive citations after retraction [3]. In 2009, the Committee on Publication Ethics released retraction guidelines demonstrating the process of retraction for journal editors, illustrating the reasons for retraction and the construction of retraction notices [4]. Researchers, editors, publishers, and database managers are increasingly aware of the importance of the integrity and reliability of the studies. Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com/), a public website launched in 2010, publishes information about newly retracted articles, and some commentaries about the current publishing ethics. Journals and databases are also taking steps to improve the research integrity. Identifying the characteristics of retracted publications can provide important information on the source, reasons, and impacts of the retracted papers, as well as helping avoid producing and publication of problematic articles, reducing their harm to the public. Numerous studies have been conducted to examine retracted publications in different specialties [57], but research on retractions in pediatric fields is lacking.
Objectives
This study aimed to systematically analyze various characteristics, such as the timing, source, citations, and reasons for retraction of pediatric research papers, and to discuss the potential causes of these phenomena and approaches to improve science integrity and publishing ethics.
Ethics statement
This study did not involve materials of human origin; therefore, neither ethical committee approval nor informed consent was required.
Study design
This systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guideline [8].
Eligibility criteria
Articles were excluded based on the following criteria: (1) duplicate articles; (2) articles unrelated to pediatric studies; (3) articles not written in English or lacking English abstracts; (4) articles from conference proceedings; (5) articles not listed as retracted on their publisher’s website; and (6) articles with discrepancies in information (title, authors, journal, publish date, digital object identifier [DOI] number, PubMed Central identifier [PMCID], or other identifying characteristics) between the database and the publisher’s website. For basic research studies, inclusion was limited to articles that either involved experiments on infant animals or focused on the upstream mechanisms or etiology of diseases predominantly affecting pediatric patients. Articles not meeting these conditions were excluded under criterion 2.
Information sources
We accessed PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Retraction Watch from inception to December 31, 2023.
Search strategy
The search terms used for MEDLINE/PubMed were “(pediatrics [Title/Abstract]) OR (Child[Title/Abstract]) OR (neonate[Title/Abstract]) OR (newborn[Title/Abstract]) OR (infant[Title/Abstract]) OR (adolescent[Title/Abstract]) Filters: Retracted Publication, Retraction of Publication.” For the database, the search term was “TS= (pediatric or child or neonate or infant or adolescent),” with subsequent refinement using the document type filter for retracted publications and retractions. Retraction Watch is a publicly accessible online website that chronologically records retractions. The database search for pediatric articles used the terms “pediatrics OR child OR neonate OR newborn OR infant OR adolescent” in subjects, covering the period up to December 31, 2023.
Selection and data collection process
Two authors conducted data extraction and classification. Each study was reviewed twice to facilitate more accurate variable classification. Basic information was acquired from the database, and the reasons for retraction were extracted from the retraction notices on the publishers’ websites.
Data items
The following characteristics of the included articles were extracted and recorded: PubMed identifier, DOI number, title, publication year, retraction year, country, journal, impact factor (IF), the subject who raised the retraction, the reason for retraction, citation count, and authors. The IFs were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports database.
For articles with multiple records in the database, information such as authorship, nationality, and citation number were obtained from earlier records, typically labeled as “retracted article.” If the record titles did not specify which was the original article, the earlier record was selected. For journals with multiple publishers, the most recent publisher was chosen.
Effect measures and synthesis methods
Categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages. Continuous variables underwent testing for Gaussian distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Pearson tests were employed to assess the correlation between the percentage of retractions from China and the year of retraction. Continuous variables that did not follow a Gaussian distribution were presented as median (interquartile range [IQR] or range).
Reporting bias assessment
Not done.
Certainty assessment
Not done.
Study selection
The searches of PubMed, WOS, and Retraction Watch yielded 405, 485, and 774 records, respectively. Of these, 406 were identified as duplicates. Additionally, 288 records were unrelated to pediatrics, and 75 records either lacked a corresponding article on the publisher’s website or contained linked articles with information inconsistent with the database records. Furthermore, 30 records were corrections or expressions of concern, 68 were not retracted according to the publisher’s website, 8 were conference proceedings, and 12 were not in English (Fig. 1). Ultimately, 786 articles remained for consideration. Among the retracted articles, 704 pertained to clinical research, while 82 were related to basic research.
Study characteristics
The full list of 786 studies is available in Dataset 1.
Risk of bias in studies
Not assessed.
Results of syntheses

Time of publication and retractions

Retracted papers were published between 1975 and 2023, with the latency between publication and retraction ranging from 0 to 45 years (median, 1; IQR, 1–3). Fig. 2 illustrates the year of publication and retraction for these papers, as well as the annual retraction rate (number of retractions divided by the number of publications each year). The number of papers retracted in 2023 reached a peak for the entire period under review.

Authors and countries

Table 1 shows the countries of the authors of the retracted papers. China ranked first, followed by the United States in second place. Other countries had far fewer retractions than the former two countries. To compare the retraction rate of each country, the number of total publications from each country was obtained from WOS. China had the highest rate of retraction (7.60 retractions out of 10,000 publications), while other countries had rates between 0 and 3. In 2022 and 2023, more than 40% of retractions originated from China (Fig. 3). The Pearson test indicated a significant correlation between the proportion of retractions from China and the years of retraction (P< 0.01, R2= 0.4876). Regarding the number of retractions per author, the top three were Yoshitaka Fujii from Japan with 20 retractions, Joachim Boldt from Germany with 14 retractions, and Agata Maltese from Italy with 11 retractions.

Journals, impact factors, and citations

A total of 416 journals retracted articles related to pediatric research. The top five journals with the highest numbers of retractions were Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, Acta Medica Mediterranea, and Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders (Table 2).
The five publishers with the most retractions were Hindawi (acquired by Wiley in 2021; 179 retractions, 28 journals), Elsevier (131 retractions, 71 journals), Springer (101 retractions, 67 journals), Wiley (70 retractions, 38 journals), and Taylor and Francis (30 retractions, 25 journals). It is worth noting that numerous journals with a high number of retractions were from Hindawi (such as Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, and Journal of Healthcare Engineering).
The journal with the highest IF was The Lancet, with an IF of 168.9. The median journal IF was 2.1 (range, 0.2–168.9; for the journals that did not have a 2022 IF, the 2021 IF was used if available). The retracted article with the most citations was published in The Lancet, with 1,733 citations [9]. Among the 680 articles that had citation data, the median number of citations was 3 (IQR, 0–12).

Reasons for retraction

According to the categories of retractions outlined by Retraction Watch and other sources [10], we have classified the reasons for retraction into five broad categories: fraud/fabrication (216 cases), plagiarism (66 cases), ethical issues (53 cases), error (274 cases), publication issues (359 cases), and others (69 cases) (Table 3).
For the articles retracted due to misconduct, we identified cases involving plagiarism, violations of the journal’s scope, duplication of images from other studies, fabrication of images, and issues of research integrity where authors could not verify that the research had been conducted. Unintended errors included mistakes in methods, data, and results, inability to provide the original data of the study, and irreproducibility of the results. Publication ethical issues encompassed invalid statements of conflict of interest, duplication of publication or research findings, failure to obtain necessary permissions to use data, failure to obtain permission to use and modify copyrighted tools, disputes over authorship, copyright issues, inadequate funding statements, manipulation of the editorial and publication process, compromised review processes, self-citation, and inappropriate citation. Other reasons for retraction included no reasons specified in the notice, retraction requests made by the patients’ parents, articles being published despite not being accepted, and patients being identifiable through information in the article.
It is worth noting that 20 psychology articles were retracted due to a compromised review process and an insufficient conflict of interest statement, which failed to declare that one of the authors was the chief editor of the journal at that time. Among all the retractions, publishers and editors initiated 518, authors initiated 151, and both authors and publishers jointly initiated 31. The remaining 86 retraction notices did not specify who initiated the retraction.
Reporting biases
There was no reporting bias.
Key results
Our study provides a comprehensive view of retracted articles in pediatrics. The interval between the publication and retraction of these articles varied widely, ranging from 0 to 45 years, with a notable peak in retractions occurring in 2023. China and the United States led the list of countries with the highest number of retractions, with the proportion of retractions originating from China showing an upward trend. Journals published by Hindawi were most frequently associated with retractions. The median impact factor of these journals was 3.1, and the median number of citations per retracted article was 3. The predominant causes for retractions were publication issues, errors, and instances of fraud or fabrication.
Interpretation/comparison with previous studies
This study found that in 2023, there was a significant increase in the number of retractions compared to previous years. This trend aligns with findings from other studies on retracted papers in the biomedical fields. The rise in retractions can be partially attributed to improved techniques for detecting issues such as figure duplication in articles. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic, which spanned from 2020 to 2022, led to a surge in biomedical publications ranging from basic mechanisms to treatment and prognosis. However, the pandemic also hindered communication among academics, which contributed to delays in identifying problematic articles [2]. Efforts are underway by publishers and databases to address these issues. For instance, the major database WOS has invested in a new artificial intelligence tool to identify journals of concern and has ceased to index or provide impact factors to journals deemed high risk [11]. Publishers are also strengthening their review processes by improving integrity checks and proactively implementing additional checks for already published articles [12]. The sudden rise in retracted articles also reflects the public’s strict attitudes toward misconduct in science and publication.
Some results about countries and authors in this study align with findings from other studies. Research on retractions in genetics, cancer research, and overall life sciences during the pandemic years shows that China and the United States had the highest number of retractions [1315]. Notably, China was ranked first in some fields [1618]. This trend has caught the attention of researchers, publishers, and government officials in the publishing industry. In response, Chinese regulators are taking measures to curb this issue. The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued guidelines in 2018 to promote scientific integrity [19]. Additionally, educational courses on research integrity and publication ethics are being offered to researchers, editors, and publication managers. A journal warning list has also been released, identifying journals that may bypass proper peer review processes or demand unreasonable article processing charges, thereby helping to prevent the publication of substandard articles [20]. Moreover, international journals operating in China are implementing new strategies to uphold integrity and ethics [21].
Previous studies have identified authors with multiple retracted articles and have explored the reasons and indicators of this phenomenon [22,23]. In the cases of two authors mentioned in this study, Boldt and Fuji, retraction notices from several journals indicated that investigations by their institutions uncovered evidence of misconduct. However, other journals that published their articles were not informed about the authors’ misconduct, resulting in these articles remaining in circulation for an extended period. A coordination mechanism is needed to ensure that such information is shared transparently and promptly.
Hindawi, a relatively new publisher, leads in the number of retractions, with many of its journals featuring prominently in this regard. Numerous retraction notices from Hindawi cite a variety of reasons, including manipulation of the editorial and Hindawi, a relatively new publisher, leads in the number of retractions, with many of its journals featuring prominently in this regard. Numerous retraction notices from Hindawi cite a variety of reasons, including manipulation of the editorial and review processes, inappropriate citations, violations of scope, and issues with data availability. These issues highlight the responsibilities of both the publisher and the authors. Furthermore, violations of journal scope are a common cause of retractions at Hindawi, a problem that is less frequently observed in journals from other publishers, as discussed below. Hindawi has acknowledged this issue and has implemented measures to mitigate the loss of scientific credibility [24]. Authors should be aware that many journals from Hindawi have experienced a drop in their IFs within the database, which may affect recognition by their institutions.
The reasons for retractions vary across different studies, often reflecting the characteristics of the research fields involved. For instance, ethical issues are the predominant cause of retractions in autism research, whereas no articles in nursing and midwifery have been retracted due to fraud or fabrication [17,25]. Retraction notices sometimes fail to specify the detailed reasons for the retraction, and frequently, they cannot confirm any misconduct by the authors [26,27]. It is noteworthy that our study is the first to identify a significant number of articles retracted for violating the scope of the journal, a phenomenon not reported in previous studies. We have provisionally classified these under fraud/fabrication, as these instances typically involve both authors and editors intending to publish a paper regardless of its relevance or accuracy, thereby compromising the article’s reliability. As mentioned earlier, some journals publish articles without a valid review process and impose high fees. There is a need to promote a culture of fair, ethical, and responsible research within academic institutions. This includes implementing a rigorous revision process, maintaining constant and thorough oversight by scientific journals, fostering open dialogue between editors, their readers, and colleagues, and ensuring adequate regulation by government agencies.
Limitations
First, many retracted papers are recorded only once in the database, making it challenging to distinguish between the “retracted paper” and the “retraction notice.” Consequently, details such as the year of publication and retraction, citation counts, and other relevant information may be missing or incorrect. Second, the publication numbers for each country from WOS do not represent the total number of publications, as they exclude articles not indexed in WOS; however, they still reflect the general level of output. Furthermore, some retraction notices are vague and do not clearly state the reasons for retraction. Lastly, this study focused solely on retracted articles in pediatrics and therefore only provides insights specific to that field. Future studies should aim for a more comprehensive analysis of retractions across various disciplines.
Conclusions
This study analyzed various factors related to retracted pediatric articles, including the timing of retraction, author details, nationality, IF, and citation count. Our findings underscore the importance of scrutinizing research and publication processes to detect and address research misconduct. Additionally, it is crucial to enhance the transparency of publication instructions, procedures, and outcomes for researchers, publishers, and regulators.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Data Availability

Dataset file is available from the Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BDKKKC.

Dataset 1. Original data of the included studies.

kcse-351-dataset-1.xlsx

The authors did not provide any supplementary materials for this article.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of the study.
kcse-351f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Trends in publications, retractions, and retraction rates over time. (A) The year of publication and retraction. (B) Retraction rate.
kcse-351f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Percentage of retractions from China over time.
kcse-351f3.jpg
Table 1.
Top 10 countries that have the highest number of retractions
Country No. of retractions Proportion (%) Retraction rate (per 10,000)
China 275 34.99 7.60
USA 128 16.28 0.55
Japan 42 5.34 2.17
India 35 4.45 2.57
Germany 24 3.05 0.97
Italy 24 3.05 1.14
Egypt 21 2.67 0.29
Iran 19 2.42 1.60
UK 18 2.29 0.55
Türkiye 17 2.16 0.77

The number of pediatric research publications from each country was obtained from the Web of Science database, using the same term as mentioned in the Methods section. The retraction rate was calculated by dividing the number of retractions for each country by its total number of publications.

Table 2.
Top 10 journals with the highest number of retractions
Journal No. of retractions
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 52
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 29
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 28
Acta Medica Mediterranea 15
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 14
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 10
Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 10
Cureus 9
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 9
Indian Journal of Pediatrics 8
Table 3.
Reasons for retraction
Retraction reason No. of cases
Fraud/fabrication 216
 Violation of scope 139
 Research integrity 20
 Figure duplication 15
 Figure falsification 8
 Unspecified 34
Plagiarism 66
Ethical issue 53
 Retrospective registration 2
 Unspecified 51
Error 274a)
 Error in data 83
 Error in methods 55
 Error in results 53
 Data availability 99
 The results cannot be reproduced 7
 Wrong version published 2
 Unspecified 3
Publication issue 359a)
 Duplication 80
 Invalid statement of conflict of interest 23
 Unable to acquire permission to use the data 23
 Authorship dispute 39
 Copyright issue 7
 Insufficient funding statement 3
 Manipulation of editorial and publication process 141
 Compromised review process 218
 Failed to obtain permission to use and modify the copyrighted tool 4
 Self-citation 15
 Inappropriate citations 143
Other/uncategorizable 69
 Request raised by parents of the patients 4
 No reason identified 58
 Article was not accepted but published mistakenly 3
 Patients identified through information from the article 2
 The source of data and conclusions are retracted 2

a) The sum exceeds the total number as one paper can be retracted due to multiple reasons.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      Bibliometric characteristics of retracted publications in pediatrics research: a systematic review
      Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study.
      Fig. 2. Trends in publications, retractions, and retraction rates over time. (A) The year of publication and retraction. (B) Retraction rate.
      Fig. 3. Percentage of retractions from China over time.
      Bibliometric characteristics of retracted publications in pediatrics research: a systematic review
      Country No. of retractions Proportion (%) Retraction rate (per 10,000)
      China 275 34.99 7.60
      USA 128 16.28 0.55
      Japan 42 5.34 2.17
      India 35 4.45 2.57
      Germany 24 3.05 0.97
      Italy 24 3.05 1.14
      Egypt 21 2.67 0.29
      Iran 19 2.42 1.60
      UK 18 2.29 0.55
      Türkiye 17 2.16 0.77
      Journal No. of retractions
      Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 52
      Journal of Healthcare Engineering 29
      Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 28
      Acta Medica Mediterranea 15
      Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 14
      Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 10
      Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 10
      Cureus 9
      Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 9
      Indian Journal of Pediatrics 8
      Retraction reason No. of cases
      Fraud/fabrication 216
       Violation of scope 139
       Research integrity 20
       Figure duplication 15
       Figure falsification 8
       Unspecified 34
      Plagiarism 66
      Ethical issue 53
       Retrospective registration 2
       Unspecified 51
      Error 274a)
       Error in data 83
       Error in methods 55
       Error in results 53
       Data availability 99
       The results cannot be reproduced 7
       Wrong version published 2
       Unspecified 3
      Publication issue 359a)
       Duplication 80
       Invalid statement of conflict of interest 23
       Unable to acquire permission to use the data 23
       Authorship dispute 39
       Copyright issue 7
       Insufficient funding statement 3
       Manipulation of editorial and publication process 141
       Compromised review process 218
       Failed to obtain permission to use and modify the copyrighted tool 4
       Self-citation 15
       Inappropriate citations 143
      Other/uncategorizable 69
       Request raised by parents of the patients 4
       No reason identified 58
       Article was not accepted but published mistakenly 3
       Patients identified through information from the article 2
       The source of data and conclusions are retracted 2
      Table 1. Top 10 countries that have the highest number of retractions

      The number of pediatric research publications from each country was obtained from the Web of Science database, using the same term as mentioned in the Methods section. The retraction rate was calculated by dividing the number of retractions for each country by its total number of publications.

      Table 2. Top 10 journals with the highest number of retractions

      Table 3. Reasons for retraction

      The sum exceeds the total number as one paper can be retracted due to multiple reasons.


      Science Editing : Science Editing
      TOP