[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Indexing Sources::
Guide for Authors::
Online Submission::
Ethics::
Articles archive::
For Reviewers::
Contact us::
::
Basic and Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition
..
DOAJ
..
CINAHL
..
EBSCO
..
IMEMR
..
ISC
..
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
enamad
..
:: Volume 24, Issue 4 (Bimonthly 2020) ::
Feyz 2020, 24(4): 446-461 Back to browse issues page
A scientometric and content analysis of research output on "Retracted Papers" indexed in Scopus
Azam Mohamadloo , Zahra Batooli
Department of Health, Safety and Environment Management, Faculty of Health, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, I.R. Iran. , batooli91@gmail.com
Abstract:   (2359 Views)
Background: This study aimed to carry out a scientometric and content analysis of articles on "Retracted Paper".
Materials and Methods: The study is applied research in terms of the purpose and scientometrics descriptive in terms of type, which has been done using the content analysis. The study population is the scientific productions on "retracted paper" indexed in Scopus by early August 2019. From 2628 retrieved articles, 140 articles related to the topic were selected. The analyzed factors were publication year, country, article type, and subject.
Results: The results show a significant increase in the number of articles from 2014 onwards. 159 authors from 36 countries and 160 universities/organizations participated in these articles. Reasons for retraction and the subjects of the articles were examined. The effect of retraction on the reputation of authors and the number of their scientific productions and citations were also examined. Gender and language of the corresponding author, international collaborations, the trend of retracted paper, journal impact factor, and time between publishing and retraction of papers were analyzed. Finally, the role of universities in academic Integrity education to researchers has been mentioned.
Conclusion: The results indicate the need to pay more attention to academic integrity education to all stakeholders (researchers, journal editors, publishers, and reviewers) and inform them about the consequences of scientific misconduct. The education and research system, scoring system, researcher promotion system, the peer review process of journals, and the punishment system for those who commit scientific misconduct need to be revised.
Keywords: Retracted papers, Scientific misconducting, Scientometrics analysis
Full-Text [PDF 662 kb]   (645 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2020/04/27 | Revised: 2020/10/11 | Accepted: 2020/08/10 | Published: 2020/10/10
References
1. Gross C. Scientific misconduct. Annu Rev Psychol 2016; 67: 693-711.
2. Callaway E. Publisher pulls 58 articles by Iranian scientists over authorship manipulation. Nature News. 2016.
3. da Silva JAT, Dobránszki J. Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics 2017; 110(3): 1653-61.
4. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PloS One 2: (10)7; 012: e44118.
5. Sade RM, Canver C, D'Amico T, Ellis J, Fenton K, Freeman R, et al. Sanctions for research misconduct in cardiothoracic surgery journals. Annals Thoracic Surgery 2016; 102(3): 685-7.
6. Website EA. When Should a Paper be Retracted? 2019 [cited Jul 19, 2019]. Available at: https://www.enago.com/academy/ when-should-a-paper-be-retracted/.
7. Coghlan A. Iran is top of the world in science growth. New Scientist 2011;28.
8. Masoomi R, Amanollahi A. Why Iranian Biomedical Articles Are Retracted? J Med Edu Dev 2018; 13(2): 87-100. [in Persian]
9. Moradi S, Janavi E. A scientometrics study of Iranian retracted papers. Iran J Inf Process Manag 2018; 33(4): 1789-808. [in Persian]
10. Butler D. Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran. Nature Publishing Group; 2009.
11. Holden C. Iran Science Officials in Plagiarism Flap. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2009.
12. Faggion Jr CM, Ware RS, Bakas N, Wasiak J. An analysis of retractions of dental publications. J Dent 2018; 79: 19-23.
13. Nogueira TE, Gonçalves AS, Leles CR, Batista AC, Costa LR. A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Res Notes 2017;10(1).
14. Mena JD, Ndoye M, Cohen AJ, Kamal P, Breyer BN. The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct. BJU Int 2019; 124(1): 174-9.
15. El-Tahan M. Can the similarity index predict the causes of retractions in high-impact anesthesia journals? A bibliometric analysis. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13(5): S2-S8.
16. Chauvin A, De Villelongue C, Pateron D, Yordanov Y. A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine. Eur J Emerg Med 2019; 26(1): 19-23.
17. Gray R, Al-Ghareeb A, McKenna L. Why articles continue to be cited after they have been retracted: An audit of retraction notices. Int J Nurs Studies 2019; 90: 11-2.
18. Dal-Ré R, Ayuso C. Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 J Med Genet. 2019.
19. Chambers LM, Michener CM, Falcone T. Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2019.
20. King EG, Oransky I, Sachs TE, Farber A, Flynn DB, Abritis A, et al. Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature. Am J Surg 2018; 216(5): 851-5.
21. Rosenkrantz AB. Retracted publications within radiology journals. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206(2): 231-5.
22. Almeida RMVR, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Gave NS. Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database. Sao Paulo Med J 2016; 134(1): 74-8.
23. Balhara YPS, Mishra A. Compliance of retraction notices for retracted articles on mental disorders with COPE guidelines on retraction. Curr Sci 2014; 107(5): 757-60.
24. Rubbo P, Helmann CL, Bilynkievycz dos Santos C, Pilatti LA. Retractions in the Engineering Field: A Study on the Web of Science Database. Ethics Behav 2019; 29(2): 141-55.
25. Cox A, Craig R, Tourish D. Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics. Res Policy 2018; 47(5): 924-35.
26. Mistry V, Grey A, Bolland MJ. Publication rates after the first retraction for biomedical researchers with multiple retracted publications. Account Res 2019; 26(5): 277-87.
27. Saikia P, Thakuria B. Retraction of papers authored by Yuhji Saitoh - Beyond the Fujii phenomenon. Indian J Anaesth 2019;63(7):571-84.
28. Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics 2019; 118(1): 339-73.
29. Dal-Ré R. Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. Med Clin 2019.
30. Li G, Kamel M, Jin Y, Xu MK, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, et al. Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: A literature survey. J MultidiscipHealthc 2018; 11: 39-47.
31. Ribeiro MD, Vasconcelos SMR. Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics 2018; 114(2): 719-34.
32. Wang T, Xing QR, Wang H, Chen W. Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals. Sci Eng Ethics 2019; 25(3): 855-68.
33. Kuroki T, Ukawa APD. Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications. Account Res 2018; 25(4): 212-9.
34. Singh HP, Mahendra A, Yadav B, Singh H, Arora N, Arora M. A comprehensive analysis of articles retracted between 2004 and 2013 from biomedical literature - A call for reforms. J Tradit Complement Med 2014; 4(3): 136-9.
35. Decullier E, Huot L, Maisonneuve H. What time-lag for a retraction search on PubMed? BMC Res Notes 2014; 7(1).
36. Foo JYA, Tan XJA. Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications. Account Res 2014; 21(3): 198-210.
37. Tripathi M, Sonkar SK, Kumar S. A cross sectional study of retraction notices of scholarly journals of science. Desidoc J Libr Inf Technol 2019; 39(2): 74-81.
38. Aspura MKYI, Noorhidawati A, Abrizah A. An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics 2018; 115(3): 1315-28.
39. He T. Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics 2013; 96(2): 555-61.
40. Lei L, Zhang Y. Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016). Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24(5): 1409-20.
41. Neale AV, Dailey RK, Abrams J. Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics 2010; 16(2): 251-61.
42. Hesselmann F, Reinhart M. Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct. Sci Commun 2019.
43. Drimer-Batca D, Iaccarino JM, Fine A. Status of retraction notices for biomedical publications associated with research misconduct. Res Ethics 2019; 15(2): 1-5.
44. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics 2017; 113(1): 547-65.
45. Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife 2014; 3: e02956.
46. Almeida RMVR, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SMR. Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22(5): 1447-56.
47. Wray KB, Andersen LE. Retractions in Science. Scientometrics 2018;117(3): 2009.
48. Coats AJS. Retraction of a paper containing plagiarized material: The prognostic value of serum troponin T in unstable angina. Gökhan Cin V, Gök H, Kaptanoǧlu B. Int J Cardiol. 1996; 53(3): 237-44. Int J Cardiol 2010; 145(3): e81-e2.
49. Ali Jawaid S, Jawaid M. Retractions by Pakistan journal of medical sciences due to scientific misconduct. J Coll Phys Surg Pak 2016; 26(8): 718-9.
50. Malički M, Utrobičić A, Marušic A. Correcting duplicate publications: Follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications. Biochem Med 2019; 29(1).
51. Chen W, Xing QR, Wang H, Wang T. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics 2018; 114(1): 217-27.
52. Decullier E, Huot L, Samson G, Maisonneuve H. Visibility of retractions: A cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res Notes 2013; 6(1.(
53. Stretton S, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, Monk JA, Ely JA, Haley C, et al. Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin 2012; 28(10): 1575-83.
54. Deculllier E, Maisonneuve H. Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices. BMC Res Notes 2018;11(1).
55. Hu G, Yang Y, Tang L. Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China. Science Engineering Ethics 2019; 25(1): 325-6.
56. Hosseini M, Hilhorst M, de Beaufort I, Fanelli D. Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error. Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24(1): 189-206.
57. Azoulay P, Bonatti A, Krieger JL. The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Res Policy 2017; 46(9): 1552-69.
58. Stone DN. Post-Hunton: Reclaiming our integrity and literature. J Info Syst 2015; 29(2): 211-27.
59. Meckfessel M, Moehrle S. Self-regulation of the academic accounting literature: The case of James Hunton. Res Account Regul 2017; 29(1): 10-8.
60. Tripathi M, Dwivedi G, Sonkar SK, Kumar S. Analysing retraction notices of scholarly journals: A study. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 2018; 38(5): 305-11.
61. Inoue Y, Muto K. Noncompliance with Human Subjects’ Protection Requirements as a Reason for Retracting Papers: Survey of Retraction Notices on Medical Papers Published from 1981 to 2011. Account Res 2016; 23(2): 123-35.
62. Cagney H, Horton R, James A, Kleinert S, Nyakoojo Z, Pryce L, et al. Retraction and republication-A new tool for correcting the scientific record? Eur Sci Ed 2016; 42(1): 3-7.
63. Resnik DB, Wager E, Kissling GE. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. J Med Libr Assoc 2015; 103(3): 136-9.
64. Han J, Li Z. How metrics-based academic evaluation could systematically induce academic misconduct: A case study. East Asian Sci Technol Soc 2018; 12(2): 165-79.
65. Satija MP, Martínez-ávila D. Plagiarism: An essay in terminology. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 2019; 39(2): 87-93.
66. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 2009; 64(4): 201-3.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mohamadloo A, Batooli Z. A scientometric and content analysis of research output on "Retracted Papers" indexed in Scopus. Feyz 2020; 24 (4) :446-461
URL: http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/article-1-4121-en.html


Creative Commons License
This open access journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial ۴.۰ International License. CC BY-NC ۴. Design and publishing by Kashan University of Medical Sciences.
Copyright ۲۰۲۳© Feyz Medical Sciences Journal. All rights reserved.
Volume 24, Issue 4 (Bimonthly 2020) Back to browse issues page
مجله علوم پزشکی فیض Feyz Medical Sciences Journal
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 46 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645