An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (PeerRef)
Abstract
The objective of our study was to obtain an updated image of the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions by studying 4844 PubMed indexed retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and their retraction notes.
RESULTS
Mistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%).
Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%).
The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions).
Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months).
The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China.
CONCLUSIONS
Mistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process.
The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles.
The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.
Article activity feed
-
Discussion, revision and decision
Revision
The research question of this article is not clear enough, and this paper is more like a report than a research paper. Since a lot of research about retraction haven been published, many characteristics of retraction have been analysed. There seem not enough new messages comes from this article.
The objective of the paper was not to address a research question but to report on a more recent set of PubMed retractions due to insufficient/old information available in the papers published on this subject(PubMed, not WoS retracted articles). One of the initial objectives was to analyze the dynamic of image related retractions(a relatively new subject), a subject for which the information is at least scarce if non existing. We have also studied the impact of retracted research via two citations …
Discussion, revision and decision
Revision
The research question of this article is not clear enough, and this paper is more like a report than a research paper. Since a lot of research about retraction haven been published, many characteristics of retraction have been analysed. There seem not enough new messages comes from this article.
The objective of the paper was not to address a research question but to report on a more recent set of PubMed retractions due to insufficient/old information available in the papers published on this subject(PubMed, not WoS retracted articles). One of the initial objectives was to analyze the dynamic of image related retractions(a relatively new subject), a subject for which the information is at least scarce if non existing. We have also studied the impact of retracted research via two citations databases (Google Scholar and Dimensions) and tried to represent the variability of this impact when the author country is being considered. At this time, the paper is the second biggest serie of PubMed retracted articles.
In addition, as ‘exploratory research’ defined by the title, the use of full data for analysis is more in line with the objectives of the title, instead of excluding other disciplines and restricting the analysis to human health. If the author’s goal is to analyse the characteristics of human health-related retractions, it is recommended to limit it in the title. The current topic is too general.*
There was an error from our part, thank you very much for pointing this.
It is recommended that the author properly point out what have and haven’t been done in this topic, and their specific contribution to the existing knowledge, so as to show the innovation of the research.*
We have revised the article and added the informations related to previous research on this subject. Thank you so much for this suggestion.
-
Peer review report
Reviewer: Yuan Junpeng Institution: National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences. email: yuanjp@mail.las.ac.cn
Section 1 – Serious concerns
- Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
- Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? not applicable
Section 2 – Language quality
- How would you rate the English language quality? High quality
Section 3 – validity and reproducibility
- Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? Yes
- Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? Yes
- Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? Yes
- Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be replicated? Yes
- Is …
Peer review report
Reviewer: Yuan Junpeng Institution: National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences. email: yuanjp@mail.las.ac.cn
Section 1 – Serious concerns
- Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
- Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? not applicable
Section 2 – Language quality
- How would you rate the English language quality? High quality
Section 3 – validity and reproducibility
- Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? Yes
- Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? Yes
- Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? Yes
- Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be replicated? Yes
- Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes
- Is quality of the figures and tables satisfactory? Yes
- Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results? Yes
- Are there any objective errors or fundamental flaws that make the research invalid?
The research question of this article is not clear enough, and this paper is more like a report than a research paper. Since a lot of research about retraction haven been published, many characteristics of retraction have been analysed. There seem not enough new messages comes from this article.
In addition, as ‘exploratory research’ defined by the title, the use of full data for analysis is more in line with the objectives of the title, instead of excluding other disciplines and restricting the analysis to human health. If the author’s goal is to analyse the characteristics of human health-related retractions, it is recommended to limit it in the title. The current topic is too general.
Section 4 – Suggestions
- In your opinion how could the author improve the study?
It is recommended that the author properly point out what have and haven’t been done in this topic, and their specific contribution to the existing knowledge, so as to show the innovation of the research.
It is recommended that the author clarify the research objectives and modify the title more in line with the content.
- Do you have any other feedback or comments for the Author? No
Section 5 – Decision
Requires revisions
-
-
-
-