A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.

<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteri...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Michael L Grieneisen, Minghua Zhang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9e2f9838b6ac4cc09baa75ec80645534
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9e2f9838b6ac4cc09baa75ec80645534
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9e2f9838b6ac4cc09baa75ec806455342021-11-18T08:11:07ZA comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0044118https://doaj.org/article/9e2f9838b6ac4cc09baa75ec806455342012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23115617/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.<h4>Results</h4>We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928-2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers' awareness of the retracted literature in their field.Michael L GrieneisenMinghua ZhangPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 10, p e44118 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Michael L Grieneisen Minghua Zhang A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
description	<h4>Background</h4>The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.<h4>Results</h4>We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928-2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers' awareness of the retracted literature in their field.
format	article
author	Michael L Grieneisen Minghua Zhang
author_facet	Michael L Grieneisen Minghua Zhang
author_sort	Michael L Grieneisen
title	A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
title_short	A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
title_full	A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
title_fullStr	A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
title_full_unstemmed	A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
title_sort	comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/9e2f9838b6ac4cc09baa75ec80645534
work_keys_str_mv	AT michaellgrieneisen acomprehensivesurveyofretractedarticlesfromthescholarlyliterature AT minghuazhang acomprehensivesurveyofretractedarticlesfromthescholarlyliterature AT michaellgrieneisen comprehensivesurveyofretractedarticlesfromthescholarlyliterature AT minghuazhang comprehensivesurveyofretractedarticlesfromthescholarlyliterature
_version_	1718422125550764032

A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.

Ejemplares similares