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

被引:73
作者
Campos-Varela, Isabel [1 ,2 ]
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Santiago de Compostela, CLINURSID, Santiago De Compostela, A Coruna, Spain
[2] Hosp Santiago de Compostela, Dept Internal Med, Santiago De Compostela, A Coruna, Spain
[3] Univ Santiago de Compostela, Area Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Santiago De Compostela, A Coruna, Spain
[4] CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
关键词
Plagiarism; Peer review; Authorship; Fraud; Scientific misconduct; DUPLICATE PUBLICATION; METAANALYSIS; PLAGIARISM; IMPACT; FRAUD;
D O I
10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To analyze the causes of retracted publications and the main characteristics of their authors. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed including all retracted publications from January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2016 indexed in PubMed. The causes of retraction were classified as: data management, authorship issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict 01 interest, other causes, and unknown reasons. Then, misbehaviour was classified as misconduct, suspicion of misconduct or no misconduct suspicion. Results: 1,082 retracted publications were identified. The retraction rate for the period was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. The main cause of retraction was misconduct (65.3%), and the leading reasons were plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. The highest proportion of retracted publications corresponded to Iran (15.52 per 10,000), followed by Egypt and China (11.75 and 8.26 pet 10,000). Conclusions: Currently, misconduct is the main cause of retraction. Specific strategies to limit this phenomenon must be implemented. It would be useful to standardize reasons and procedures for retraction. The development of a standard retraction form to be permanently indexed in a database might be relevant. (C) 2018 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.
引用
收藏
页码:356 / 360
页数:5
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] The urge to publish more and its consequences
    Abdollahi, Mohammad
    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri
    Saeidnia, Soodabeh
    [J]. DARU-JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, 2014, 22
  • [2] PUBLISH OR PERISH - A PROPOSAL
    ANGELL, M
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1986, 104 (02) : 261 - 262
  • [3] PERSONAL VIEW Mandatory publication in India: setting quotas for research output could encourage scientific fraud
    Aulakh, Roosy
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 354
  • [4] Phenomena of retraction - Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications
    Budd, JM
    Sievert, ME
    Schultz, TR
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03): : 296 - 297
  • [5] Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities
    Callaway, Ewen
    [J]. NATURE, 2011, 479 (7371) : 15 - 15
  • [6] Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature
    Casadevall, Arturo
    Steen, R. Grant
    Fang, Ferric C.
    [J]. FASEB JOURNAL, 2014, 28 (09) : 3847 - 3855
  • [7] CoPECr. Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE RETR GUID
  • [8] Das A K, 2016, Med J Armed Forces India, V72, P172, DOI 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014
  • [9] Visibility of retractions: A cross-sectional one-year study
    Decullier E.
    Huot L.
    Samson G.
    Maisonneuve H.
    [J]. BMC Research Notes, 6 (1)
  • [10] How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    Fanelli, Daniele
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2009, 4 (05):