Search

Introduction: With the significant expansion of research, we are witnessing the discrediting of some scientific outputs in the field of medicine. This study endeavored to investigate the dimensions and patterns of cooperation of internationally discredited works in the field of medicine in the Scopus database.Methods: This study is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of conducting research and data analysis, it is quantitative and has been done using bibliometric analysis method and scientometric approach and illustration techniques to draw scientific collaborations. The population is all the discredited medical works available from 2016 to the end of 2020 in the Scopus database which has been done using the network analysis method.Results: The findings showed that during the period, 480 works published in Scopus database were discredited. The Unites States, England, India, and China have the highest index of centrality, intimacy, and crosscontextuality. These countries play an important role in connecting nodes and transmitting information over the network.Conclusion: Discredited articles in the United States and England have high centrality indices, which indicates the greater influence and power of these countries, which, in turn, have a greater influence on other countries in the scientific network.

Background and aim: Retraction of articles is a mechanism used to remove inaccurate and incomplete articles and to correct scientific background. The aim of the present study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the retraction trend of publications from 10 countries with the highest prevalence on the web of science during 2000-2020. Materials and methods: In this applied descriptive study, data were collected from the Web of Science (WoS) and "Retraction Watch" databases using the scientometric method. From all countries with retracted publications (RP), 10 countries were selected as a purposive sample and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings: The findings showed that 90% of all RP indexed in the WoS during 2000-2020 occurred in 10 countries: China, United States, Japan, India, Iran, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, Italy, and France. Moreover, it was found that in addition to the upward trend, the slope of RP has increased in recent years. The results also indicated that China, USA, and Japan had the highest number of RP with 42.8, 26.8, and 8.1%. Among the universities, Islamic Azad University was in the first rank with 138 (2.4%) retracted publications. The results of the Spearman correlation coefficient revealed that there was a weak and positive correlation between rank in the frequency of scientific outputs and rank in the number of retracted documents. Conclusion: Familiarity and attention to the reasons for the retraction of publications can prevent the rapid growth of these documents in the future. The ascending trend in the retraction of publications in the 10 countries is worrying, requiring the serious attention of scientific authors and policymakers.

MAY AUTHORS’ PUBLISHED ARTICLES LAST FOREVER!

ObjectivesThe growing rate of retraction of scientific publications has attracted much attention within the academic community, but there is little knowledge about the nature of such retractions in schizophrenia-related research. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retractions of schizophrenia-related publications.Materials and methodsThe Web of Science was searched for eligible studies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of the retractions using R software and Excel 2019. Content analysis was conducted to examine the essential components of retraction notices.ResultsA total of 36 retracted publications with 415 citations were identified from 1997 to 2021, of which, 83.3% occurred in the last decade. The overall retraction rate was 0.19%, with most of them (29; 80.56%) from the United Kingdom. The retractions were published in 33 journals, and the 2020 IFs ranged between 0.17 and 49.96 (Median = 3.93). The retractions involved 21 research areas, particularly in Psychiatry (19; 52.78%), Neurosciences and Neurology (10; 27.78%), and Psychology (7; 19.44%). Data issues (17; 42.22%), administrative errors of the publishers (5; 13.89%), and study design (4; 11.11%) were the top three reasons for retractions.ConclusionThis study provides an insight into retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction.

Background: Retraction of articles occurs as a result of scientific misconducts or honest errors. Objectives: This study aimed to identify the frequency of retracted Iranian publications, compared to those of other countries and adjust them with influential parameters. Methods: All publications that were indexed on the Scopus database from 2008 to 2017 and then retracted, due to scientific misconduct were extracted through the Retraction Watch database and selected as the research community. To calculate the growth of retraction for each proposed country (or region), first, the rate of an absolute number of retracted papers for the years 2013-2017 was divided by the similar number for years 2008-2012, then this rate was adjusted to the retracted rate which is similarly computed for the total retracted statistics of the world. Results: Overall, 545 Iranian retracted publications from 2008 to 2017 were identified, of which 240 and 305 retracted articles were related to the first five years and the second five years of the study, respectively. The results showed that less than 1% (0.82) of all scientific articles published by Iranian researchers were retracted. However, the rate of retracted scientific articles in Iran compared to this rate in the world was significantly higher. Conclusion: Although retracted Iranian publications make up a small percentage of all Iranian publications, the number of retracted publications is increasing. It is important to recognize the reasons for scientific misconducts and to provide researchers with proper education.

Abstract Background and aim The volume of withdrawn publications in scholarly disciplines has grown steadily, but there is little awareness about this issue in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to analyze the extent of retracted articles pertaining to rehabilitation. Methods Retracted articles were searched in 4 different bibliographic databases from their inception to April 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, WikiLetters and Retraction Watch. Three independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the retrieved articles to the rehabilitation area. Results Of 280 rehabilitation-related publications retracted between 1984 and 2020, 83 (29.6%) were published in 55 full open access journals and 197 (70.4%) were published in 147 traditional, non-open access or hybrid journals. In the last 10 years (2009–2018) there was a significant steady increase in both the total number of retractions (p

Abstract Objectives The present systematic review aimed to perform an in‐depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. Material and methods This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018. Results 180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four‐year period (2014–2018), when compared with 2009–2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher‐related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable. Conclusions Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.

Background and Aims: Various aspects of retracted articles authored by Yoshitaka Fujii and their retraction notices have been examined. Yuhji Saitoh has coauthored many articles with Yoshitaka Fujii which were subsequently retracted. Japanese Society of Anesthesiology (JSA) recommends retraction of various articles by Yuhji Saitoh, but various attributes of those and their retraction notices have not been examined. Methods: A list of retracted articles was retrieved from PubMed, Retraction Watch Database and relevant journals. Their retraction notices were obtained from the journal's webpage. Predefined characteristics of the retracted articles and their retraction notices were evaluated against those proposed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Results: Fifteen such articles were retracted. Two of them were not identified as retracted in the journal webpage. Half of the papers mentioned by JSA are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, only 13.3% retraction notices were in line with the guidelines published by the COPE. Two retracted articles are yet to be flagged as retracted in PubMed. The median (interquartile range) time required for retraction from the date of declaration of being eligible for retraction is 14 (3) months. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel™ (2007). Conclusion: Even after more than 1 year of recommendation, many articles containing evidence of scientific misconduct are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, the relevant authority failed to follow the prevalent and well-regarded standards of ethics in scholarly publication.

Background: Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and a warning for readers in relation to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data. As a result of growth and development of Iranian publications in the last two decades, that brings unethical behavior of researchers led to retraction of their publications. We aimed to investigate Iranian retracted publications indexed in PubMed database. Methods: All Iranian retracted publications published in PubMed up to Dec 2017 have been retrieved. Bibliographic information of retracted publications, retraction notice, time lag between article publication date and the date of retraction notice, reasons of retraction, Issuer of retraction and acknowledge information of retracted publication were recorded. Additionally, citation data of retracted publications before 2013 were analyzed. Results: Overall, 164 Iranian retracted publications were identified. Meantime lag was 20.8 months. "Islamic Azad University" and "Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)" were two affiliations that have received highest number of retracted publications. The most issuer of retraction publications was editor-in-chief and the most mentioned reasons for retractions were authorship issues, plagiarism, and redundant publication. Thirty-three (20.12%) publications have received funds from various agencies. Citation study of retracted publications indicates that these publications have received 789 citations (Citation per publication=11.6). Conclusion: Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased. More than half of retracted publications have had authorship issues and plagiarism that requires more attention to research ethics authorities.

Abstract Background Publication retraction is a mechanism to preserve the scientific literature against publications that contain seriously flawed or erroneous data, redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, and other features that compromise the integrity of science. An increase in the occurrence of retractions in recent years has been reported. Nevertheless, there is scarce information on this topic concerning publications in dentistry and related specialties. Thus, this study aimed to investigate retracted papers published in dental journals. Methods Data collection included an exploratory search in PubMed and a specific search in SCImago Journal Rank indexed journals, complemented by the cases reported on the Retraction Watch website and in PubMed. All 167 dental journals included in SCImago were searched for identification of retracted articles up to March 2016. The selected retracted articles and their corresponding retraction notices were recorded and assessed for classification according to the reason for retraction and other additional information. Results Forty of the 167 journals scrutinised at SCImago (23.9%) had at least one retracted article, and four additional journals were identified from the Retraction Watch website. A total of 72 retracted found were retracted for the reasons: redundant publication (20.8%), plagiarism (18.1%), misconduct (13.8%), overlap (13.6%) and honest error (9.7%). Higher number of retractions were reported in those journals with cites/doc