Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category

Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction.

METHODS

Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%).

CONCLUSION

In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues

An Ethics Committee (EC) is an independent body composed of members with expertise in both scientific and nonscientific arenas which functions to ensure the protection of human rights and the well-being of research subjects based on six basic principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, confidentiality, and honesty. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Directory of Open Access Journals were searched for studies relevant to this topic. This review is focused on the types of research articles that need EC approval, the submission process, and exemptions. It further highlights the constitution of ECs, their duties, the review process, and the assessment of the risk-benefit of the proposed research including privacy issues. It's pertinent for academicians and researchers to abide by the rules and regulations put forth by ECs for upholding of human rights and protecting research subjects primarily, as well as avoiding other issues like retraction of publications. Despite various issues of cost, backlogs, lack of expertise, lesser representation of laypersons, need for multiple approvals for multisite projects, conflicts of interest, and monitoring of ongoing research for the continued safety of participants, the ECs form the central force in regulating research and participant safety. Data safety and monitoring boards complement the ECs for carrying out continuous monitoring for better protection of research subjects. The establishment of ECs has ensured safe study designs, the safety of human subjects along with the protection of researchers from before the initiation until the completion of a study.

ANALYSIS OF RETRACTED PUBLICATIONS FROM KAZAKHSTAN

Introduction: Retraction is a mechanism to prevent the dissemination of erroneous, misleading, or biased data and information. Various factors can cause retraction. In this article, we focused on Kazakhstan data and aimed to present an analysis of retracted publications from Kazakhstan. Methods: Data for this descriptive cross-sectional article were obtained from the 'Retraction Watch’ database without time restriction. Among the country selections, 'Kazakhstan,' 'Tajikistan,' 'Uzbekistan,' 'Kyrgyzstan,' and 'Turkmenistan' were chosen, and the number of retracted articles was recorded. For detailed analysis, Kazakhstan data were focused on and further analyses were performed on Kazakhstan data. Article title, authors, time interval (in days) from publication to retraction, date of retraction, source of publication, subject area of publication, publication type, and retraction reason were recorded in an Excel file. Results: The number of retracted publications was detected as 64 from Kazakhstan, 49 from Tajikistan, 17 from Uzbekistan, 12 from Kyrgyzstan, and 1 from Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan data were as follows: The median time interval between publication date and retraction date was 475 (46 - 2074) days. Retraction reasons were listed as: Plagiarism (n = 22), peer review issues (n = 21), duplication (n = 11), author disagreements and conflict (n = 5), error (n = 5), fraud (n = 2), ethical issues ( n = 1), publication issues (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). The three areas with the most retracted articles were engineering (n = 22), education (n = 21), and technology (n = 12). Conclusion: Kazakhstan was first among the five Central Asian countries in terms of the number of retracted publications. Plagiarism, peer review issues, and duplication were at the forefront of the retraction reasons. There is a need for approaches to increase the knowledge of researchers in Kazakhstan about the retraction reasons and ethical research conditions.

Characteristics of retracted editorial articles in the biomedical literature

The main purpose of this short communication is to identify and analyze retracted editorials in the biomedical literature. Twenty-five of the 33 editorials are chosen for further analysis. All of the editorials were published as commentaries and concise reviews between 1998 and 2021. Due to plagiarism and data-related issues, the majority of the editorial articles were retracted. Alarmingly, one-fifth of the editorials were funded by external agencies, with the USA leading the list of retracted editorials. The average time between the publication of the editorials and their retraction is 2.48 years, and two editorials were retracted with the longest durations; both were written by the same author. The conclusion is that, at the very least, editorial articles should be devoid of research/scientific misconduct.

Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges

Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.

Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors

The aim of the present study is to identify retracted articles in the biomedical literature (co) authored by Indian authors and to examine the features of retracted articles. The PubMed database was searched to find the retracted articles in order to reach the goal. The search yielded 508 records and retrieved for the detailed analysis of: authorships and collaboration type, funding information, who retracts? journals and impact factors, and reasons for retraction. The results show that most of the biomedical articles retracted were published after 2010 and common reasons are plagiarism and fake data for retraction. More than half of the retracted articles were co-authored within the institutions and there is no repeat offender. 25% of retracted articles were published in the top 15 journals and 33% were published in the non-impact factor journals. Average time from publication to retraction is calculated to 2.86 years and retractions due to fake data takes longest period among the reasons. Majority of the funded research was retracted due to fake data whereas it is plagiarism for non-funded.

Swiss Validation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Database

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have considerably improved postoperative outcomes and are in use for various types of surgery. The prospective audit system (EIAS) could be a powerful tool for large-scale outcome research but its database has not been validated yet.

Methods

Swiss ERAS centers were invited to contribute to the validation of the Swiss chapter for colorectal surgery. A monitoring team performed on-site visits by the use of a standardized checklist. Validation criteria were (I) coverage (No. of operated patients within ERAS protocol; target threshold for validation: ≥ 80%), (II) missing data (8 predefined variables; target ≤ 10%), and (III) accuracy (2 predefined variables, target ≥ 80%). These criteria were assessed by comparing EIAS entries with the medical charts of a random sample of patients per center (range 15–20).

Results

Out of 18 Swiss ERAS centers, 15 agreed to have onsite monitoring but 13 granted access to the final dataset. ERAS coverage was available in only 7 centers and varied between 76 and 100%. Overall missing data rate was 5.7% and concerned mainly the variables “urinary catheter removal” (16.4%) and “mobilization on day 1” (16%). Accuracy for the length of hospital stay and complications was overall 84.6%. Overall, 5 over 13 centers failed in the validation process for one or several criteria.

Conclusion

EIAS was validated in most Swiss ERAS centers. Potential patient selection and missing data remain sources of bias in non-validated centers. Therefore, simplified validation of other centers appears to be mandatory before large-scale use of the EIAS dataset.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s00268-020-05926-z).

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Background

Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period.

Methods

Quasiexperimental, pre–post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed.

Results

There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.

Commentary: Cancer research quality and tumour classification

Cancer researchers require accurate diagnoses for the samples, cell lines, patients or populations that they study. These diagnoses are underpinned by an internationally accepted taxonomy - the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. This is still largely based on the histopathological examination of biopsy specimens, but increasingly also molecular methods and radiological examination of patients. Classifications evolve as new evidence arises, and for tumours that evidence is available in a quantity that is both remarkable and daunting. Evaluating this deluge of new information and incorporating it into the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours is now the responsibility of an editorial board, and up to 200 editors and authors work on each system to update it within the new 5th edition. Just as cancer researchers depend on the classification for diagnoses, so too the classification depends on the generation of high-quality, trustworthy data by cancer researchers. It is not just a case of quantity but quality too. Scientific fraud is thankfully rare, but high-profile cases are damaging and standards need to improve, not least to ensure that accurate information enters the classification.