Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?

<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We examin...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	R Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C Fang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/4ef4f406c5ca45699ade0be775ef09aa
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:4ef4f406c5ca45699ade0be775ef09aa
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:4ef4f406c5ca45699ade0be775ef09aa2021-11-18T07:38:18ZWhy has the number of scientific retractions increased?1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0068397https://doaj.org/article/4ef4f406c5ca45699ade0be775ef09aa2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23861902/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972-1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972-1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for "new" offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.R Grant SteenArturo CasadevallFerric C FangPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 7, p e68397 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q R Grant Steen Arturo Casadevall Ferric C Fang Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
description	<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972-1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972-1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for "new" offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
format	article
author	R Grant Steen Arturo Casadevall Ferric C Fang
author_facet	R Grant Steen Arturo Casadevall Ferric C Fang
author_sort	R Grant Steen
title	Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
title_short	Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
title_full	Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
title_fullStr	Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
title_full_unstemmed	Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
title_sort	why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/4ef4f406c5ca45699ade0be775ef09aa
work_keys_str_mv	AT rgrantsteen whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased AT arturocasadevall whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased AT ferriccfang whyhasthenumberofscientificretractionsincreased
_version_	1718423158148562944

Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?

Ejemplares similares