An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

Abstract

Background As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. Methods Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed. Results A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%. Conclusions The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.

Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine

“…Different approaches have been used to identify postretraction citations, such as after 1 month ( Mott et al, 2019 ), after 6 months ( Hamilton, 2019 ), and after the calendar year of retraction ( Budd et al, 2011 , 2016 ; Madhugiri et al, 2021 ; Pfeifer & Snodgrass, 1990 ). Here we operationalize a postretraction citation as a citation made after the calendar year of retraction.…”

“…For example, Madhugiri et al (2021) examined citations to 191 retracted papers in clinical neurosurgery as well as in allied clinical and basic science specialties. They reported that postretraction citations accounted for 50% of all the citations received by the retracted papers ( Madhugiri et al, 2021 ). Rubbo et al (2019) and Theis-Mahon and Bakker (2020) studied 238 retracted engineering articles and 136 retracted dentistry articles, respectively.…”

“…In contrast to large-scale studies, citation analyses of retracted papers in a particular field are abundant ( Bolboacă, Buhai et al, 2019 ; Dal-Ré & Ayuso, 2020 ; Hamilton, 2019 ; Madhugiri, Nagella, & Uppar, 2021 ; Pantziarka & Meheus, 2019 ; Rubbo et al, 2019 ; Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020 ; Yang et al, 2020 ). For example, Madhugiri et al (2021) examined citations to 191 retracted papers in clinical neurosurgery as well as in allied clinical and basic science specialties. They reported that postretraction citations accounted for 50% of all the citations received by the retracted papers ( Madhugiri et al, 2021 ).…”

“…In contrast to large-scale studies, citation analyses of retracted papers in a particular field are 100 abundant (Bolboacă et al, 2019;Dal-Ré & Ayuso, 2020;Hamilton, 2019;Madhugiri et al, 2021;101 Pantziarka & Meheus, 2019;Rubbo et al, 2019;Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020;Yang et al, 2020).…”

“…For example, Madhugiri et al (2021) examined citations to 191 retracted papers in clinical 103 neurosurgery as well as in allied clinical and basic science specialties. They reported that postretraction citations accounted for 50% of all the citations received by the retracted papers (Madhugiri et al, 2021).…”