A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.ResultsWe 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widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted.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.ConclusionsRetracted 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.

Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms

“…While the development of these databases indicates both an interest in and a desire to enhance the discoverability of retractions, databases such as these have been criticized as "impractical" in that they require additional searching on the part of researchers in addition to the initial identification of articles (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 (Crossref, 2017a). Several publishers represented in our study are members of Crossmark, including Elsevier, Springer, and Oxford University Press.…”

“…Retracted publications are considered a rarity, making up only an estimated 0.02% of the biomedical literature (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012). However, the rate of retractions has risen notably in recent years, with retraction notices in MEDLINE increasing 41% between 2014 and 2015 compared to the number of notices in 2013 and 2014 (U.S. National Li-brary of Medicine, 2016).…”

Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language

“…Although it is not easy to evaluate the amount of published scientific papers containing incorrect conclusions, the number of retractions may provide information on the problems associated with traditional peer-review. In 2012, Grieneisen and Zhang surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites [44]. They found that the number of retractions has increased considerably after 2001.…”

Maintaining the Public Trust in Journals with Ethical Publishing

“…In recent years, the website RetractionWatch and other news media have helped investigate misconduct to assist editors in publishing an erratum or retracting a paper when authors were unwilling to cooperate with inquiries as in the case of the Wakefield study [8]. One would think that the harsh attention given to scientific misconduct by news media would serve to deter it, but it seems misconduct has gotten worse because "the number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010" [9]. When adjusted for repeat offenders, the factor was closer to 11 [9].…”

“…One would think that the harsh attention given to scientific misconduct by news media would serve to deter it, but it seems misconduct has gotten worse because "the number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010" [9]. When adjusted for repeat offenders, the factor was closer to 11 [9].…”