Search

Egypt currently holds the record for the most retractions in the continent of Africa according to the Retraction Watch database, and the 2nd highest of countries in the Middle East. The purpose of this study was to analyse the retracted medical publications from Egyptian affiliations, in order to delineate specific problems and solutions. We examined databases including Pubmed, Google Scholar and others, for all retracted medical publications that were conducted in an Egyptian institution, up to the date of August 31st 2022. We observed for the reason(s) for retraction, number of citations of the retracted work, the length of time between publication and retraction, and where the work was published (journal, publisher and impact factor). 68 retractions were identified. Most retractions were from the speciality of Obstetrics and Gynecology (n = 22), followed by Anesthesia (n = 7). The top 3 reasons for retraction were unreliable results, FFP level misconduct, and duplicate publication. The number of retractions significantly increased over the years, especially in 2022. When taking into account the number of medical publications per institution, the institute with the highest rate of retractions was Mansoura University, while the lowest rate was Cairo University. The number of retracted medical Egyptian publications continues to increase over time, although they represent a small portion of the overall body of Egyptian medical research. Future studies on retracted articles should employ a methodology that considers the institutions where the studies were conducted. This could allow a better understanding of specific problems in certain countries or regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

With continents and oceans in-between, sibling authors, one from a BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nation and other from a G7 (Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United States) nation, propose christening bipolar disorder of publishing biomedical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is threefold: (i) to identify the combinations of national culture dimensions that lead to high (or low) male or female retracted publications, (ii) to understand the role of personal trust as a relevant condition that combines with national culture dimensions to cause high (or low) male or female retraction, and (iii) to identify the differences in the configurations that lead to those outcomes. Based on framework of Hofstede's cross-cultural analysis and data from Hofstede Center, World Value, and Web of Science, this essay analyzes cultural complex causal relations between national culture and trust dimensions (conditions), and male and female retracted publications (outcomes) in 30 countries nationally and globally by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. This research provides three major insights: (i) Cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation) and trust are not necessary conditions for both male and female to cause retractions, (ii) different levels of personal trust (high/low) combine with national cultural dimensions in order to produce different configurations that can lead to high or low retractions, and (iii) Each gender causes retractions in a similar or identical way, but each also owns its unique way. Finally, we provide effective policy recommendations to specific countries based on our critical conclusions and discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is currently unknown how many publications in the medical imaging literature are retracted and for which reasons. The purpose of this study was to perform an updated analysis on retracted medical imaging publications using the Retraction Watch Database. The Retraction Watch Database was searched for all retracted publications in the subject category "Radiology/Imaging" (no beginning date limit, search update until April 27, 2022). Reasons for retraction were extracted using standardized coding taxonomy. The number of citations per retracted publication was determined. Spearman's rho was used for statistical analysis. 192 retractions, originally published between 1984 and 2021, were included. Most retractions originated from China (31.3%), the United States (12.5%), Japan (7.3%), and South Korea (6.3%). The number of retractions increased over the years, especially since 2000 (Spearman's rho=0.764, p <0.001). Delay between original publication and retraction ranged from 0 days to 14 years and 3 months (median of 11 months). Most common reasons for retraction were duplication of article (7.1%), plagiarism of article (6.8%), concerns/issues about data (5.4%), investigation by company/institution (4.5%), and forged authorship (4.0%). Scientific misconduct was deemed present in 107 of 192 retracted articles (55.7%). Retracted articles (of which 138 were listed in Web of Science) received a median of 2 citations (range 0-148, IQR 5). The number of retracted medical imaging publications continues to increase over time, which could indicate that more compromised research has either been published or discovered. Scientific misconduct was the main cause for retraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 cross-contextuality. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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!

Objectives: The 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 methods: The 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. Results: A 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. Conclusion: This study provides an insight into retractions of schizophreniarelated publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify the characteristics of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals. The Web of Science, PubMed, and Retraction Watch databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Retracted publications published in rehabilitation or sport sciences journals, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were included. One author extracted the data. Two other authors checked the data. A total of 37 and 52 retracted publications and their retraction notices were identified for rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. The majority of retracted publications (68% of all retracted papers in rehabilitation and 54% of all retracted papers in sport sciences) were published in the past decade. Retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences were published in 21 and 22 different journals and originated from 18 and 21 different countries, respectively. The full-text of the retracted publications was available with a retraction watermark or note for 59% of cases in rehabilitation and 58% in sport sciences. The reasons for the retractions were more often attributed to misconduct (79% and 61%) than to honest error (21% and 39%) in rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. However, a reason was not stated for 15% of the publications. The median time interval between publication and retraction was 622 days in rehabilitation and 607 days in sport sciences publications. The total number of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals was small. The retracted publications have been published in a variety of rehabilitation and sport sciences journals and came from different countries across the world. Several retracted publications and retraction notices failed to adhere to The Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines in the handling of full-text (retain with a watermark or note) or stating the underlying reasons for the retraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retraction of articles occurs as a result of scientific misconducts or honest errors. The present study aimed to examine retracted articles on PubMed database written by Iranian authors in biomedicine. Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted articles on PubMed database written by Iranian authors were retrieved using the following keywords; Iran [AD] AND "Retracted Publication"[PT]. The following data were extracted based on a specific form: first and last names of the first author, publication year, journal name, country of publication, number of citations, and retraction notices. Then, retraction notices were examined and the reasons for retraction were categorized. Results: In total, there were 145 retracted articles, showing a rise in recent years. However, the ratio of retracted articles to all articles was not increased. Plagiarism (46.90%), compromised peer review (40%), and duplicate publication (19.31%) were the most important reasons for retraction. Over 80% of articles (118 articles) were retracted due to scientific misconduct. More than 32% of all articles (47 articles) were published in three journals. The largest number of articles pertained to biochemistry and molecular biology (25 articles), pharmacology and pharmacy (24 articles), and oncology (21 articles). Conclusions: It is essential that the reasons for scientific misconduct be identified and proper education be offered to students and researchers. These behaviors can be avoided by empowering researchers by attending in writing and research ethics training while penalizing those who misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 <2.0—n = 49 (74.2%). The types of studies were mainly laboratory studies (34.7%), case reports (22.2%) and review articles (13.9%). Conclusions: The approach to ethical problems in papers published in dental scientific journals is still incipient; retractions were mostly due to the authors' malpractice and were more frequently related to journals with less impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]