The objective of our study was to obtain an updated image of the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research (QRP) and publication practices (QPP), countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions, by studying 4844 PubMed indexed retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and their retraction notes. Results: Mistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images (22.5%), plagiarism (13.7%) and overlap (11.5%). There were 163 cases of duplicate submission (3.36%), 180 cases of lack of reproducibility (3.72%), 181 cases of editorial errors (3.73%), 229 cases of fabricated data (4.73%) and 350 cases of fraudulent peer review (7.22%). Journals failed to properly report the retraction in 247 cases (5.1%). Thirty countries account for 94.79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China (32.78%), United States (18.95%), India (7.24%), Japan (4.37%) and Italy (3.75%). The total citations number for all articles is 140,810 (Google Scholar), 96,000 (Dimensions). Average exposure time (ET) is 28.89 months. The largest ET is for image retractions (49.3 months), the lowest ET is for editorial errors (11.2 months). The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China. Conclusions: Mistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap continue to represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals with a peak of 878 retractions issued in 2020. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process. The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles. The distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the How to cite this paper: Toma, C., & Padureanu, L. ( 2021). An Exploratory Analysis of 4844 Withdrawn Articles and Their

Background: Withdrawal of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers, especially in the conditions of the ever-increasing trend of publishing activity in the medical field. The market volume and the business model justify publishers' involvement in the post-publication quality control (QC) of scientific production. The limited information about this subject determined us to analyze retractions and the main retraction reasons for publishers with many withdrawn articles. We also propose a score to measure the evolution of their performance. The data set used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods: We have analyzed the retraction notes and retraction reasons, grouping them by publisher. To evaluate performance, we formulated an SDTP score whose calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors' participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and clarity of retraction notes), precision (mention of authors' responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results: The 4844 withdrawn articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of withdrawn articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than ten withdrawn articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed journals withdrew at least one article. Only 10.5% of the withdrawal notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of articles withdrawn in 2020, in the first 11 places finding, as expected, some big publishers. Retraction reasons analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), 10 and 42 months (plagiarism & overlap). The SDTP score shows, between 2018 and 2020, an improvement in QC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions: Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.

Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the business model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze PubMed-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.

This article looks at the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions. Four thousand eight hundred forty-four retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and indexed in PubMed were analyzed. RESULTS: Mistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%). Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%). The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions). Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months). The impact of retracted research is higher for countries like United States, Spain, Netherlands and lower for countries like Pakistan, China, Poland. CONCLUSIONS: Mistakes and inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process. The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles. The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.