Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.

RESULTS

A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (n = 382), followed by general internal medicine (n = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (n = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.

CONCLUSION

RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.

Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of metadata for retracted articles in Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS).

METHODS

Twenty general internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 2 were randomly selected. RWD, PubMed, and WoS were used to retrieve all retracted articles published in these journals. Eight metadata variables were examined: journal, title, type of article, author(s), country/countries of affiliation, year of publication, year of retraction, and reason(s) for retraction (assessed only for RWD, as this information was unavailable in PubMed and WoS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to document errors across databases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five retractions were identified, and 280 metadata entries (35 × 8) were analyzed. RWD contained the most metadata errors, affecting 16 articles and 20 metadata entries, including seven errors in year of publication, six in article type, six in author names (five misspellings, one missing two authors), and one in country of affiliation. WoS had one error (a missing author), and PubMed had none.

CONCLUSION

The relatively high error rate in RWD suggests that researchers should cross-check metadata across multiple databases. Given the preliminary nature of this study, larger-scale research is needed to confirm these findings and improve metadata reliability in retraction databases.

Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country

This study examines disparities in research retractions due to misconduct, identifying countries with the highest retraction counts and those disproportionately represented relative to population and publication output. The findings emphasize the need for improved research integrity measures.

Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.

METHODS

Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.

RESULTS

One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Fig. 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < 0.05) and World Neurosurgery (p < 0.05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < 0.001) and systematic reviews (p < 0.001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing research quality in neurosurgery.

A Mummers Farce – Retractions of Medical Papers Conducted in Egyptian Institutions

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.

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Characteristics of Retracted Research Articles About COVID-19 vs Other Topics

This cross-sectional study compares the author and journal characteristics of retracted articles on COVID-19 with retracted articles from other topics.

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

The correction practice of scientific publications is usually used to correct publication errors by issuing correction notices, and it is less explored compared to retraction practice. The aim of this study is to present an overview of correction practice and to explore the citation situation of correction notices in library and information science (LIS) journals, using 720 correction notices in the Web of Science from 2001–2020. Through bibliometrics and content analysis, we found the correcting rate of LIS was relatively low. The main types of corrected errors occurred in authorship, figure or table, references, etc. Most corrected errors were trivial or minor. The citation situation of correction notices was more complex than expected and could be classified into five types. It was relatively rare to cite both the corrected paper and correction notice in a standardized manner. The remaining four types of citation were unreasonable, which could influence citation practice and reduce the citations of corrected papers. We concluded that the appearance of the correction notice had affected the citation of the corrected papers to some extent, and researchers and databases needed to pay attention to this problem. We also provided some suggestions for improving correction practice.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a "retracted article" message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.

RESULTS

Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.