Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis

Nair, Saraswathy; Yean, Chetra; Yoo, Jennifer; Leff, Jonathan D.; Delphin, Ellise; Adams, David C.

doi:10.1007/s12630-019-01508-3

Cited by 52 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In an analysis of the reasons for retraction in human studies overall, misconduct (51%), errors (14.4%), and duplication (12.6%) accounted for the highest number [12]. A similar trend was seen in anesthesiology where misconduct (specifically fraud or data fabrication) accounted for nearly 50% of all retractions [17]. This pattern was replicated across surgical specialties as well; plagiarism, data falsification, and duplication were the most common reasons for retraction in surgery, orthopedics, and obstetrics and gynecology [6,11,21].…”

Section: Manuscript Characteristics and Reasons For Retractionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The reasons for the retraction of published papers and the rates of retraction vary across scientific disciplines. Data fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, research misconduct, and errors in the articles have been identified to be common reasons for retraction [12,16,17]. In open-access journals, one of the most common reasons for retraction is a compromised peer review process [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In open-access journals, one of the most common reasons for retraction is a compromised peer review process [16]. Very often, limited information regarding the reasons for retraction is available, and thus, it becomes difficult to distinguish retractions due to genuine errors from those due to misconduct [17]. The rate of retraction in a specialty can act as an indirect indicator of the efficacy of the institutional and post-publication checkpoints in addressing errors and fraud in that specialty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Manuscript Characteristics and Reasons For Retractionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, anesthesia appears to have a higher retraction rate than neurosurgery and the HICJ groups; the RI for anesthesia is also higher than that for the life sciences as a whole. Most retractions in anesthesia appear to be due to misconduct by authors, especially data fabrication and plagiarism [20,21]. These reasons for retraction are nearly congruent to those in other specialties [22][23][24].…”

Section: Retractions In Anesthesiamentioning

confidence: 82%

Journal Retraction Rates and Citation Metrics: An Ouroboric Association?

Nagella

Madhugiri

2020

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Retraction of published papers has a far-reaching impact on the scientific world, especially if the retracted papers were published in high-impact journals. Although it has been noted that the retraction rates of journals correlated with their citation metrics, no conclusive data were available for most clinical specialties. In this study, we determined the retraction rate for anesthesia and two comparison groups (neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals). We then studied the correlation of the retraction rate with citation metrics. Methods We generated a list of all anesthesia journals that were indexed in the National Library of Medicine database. We obtained the number of papers published in each journal as well as the number of papers retracted from each. We also collated the Impact Factor® and H-index of each journal. The same methodology was followed for neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals. We then studied the correlations between the retraction rate and citation metrics of each journal. Results The retraction index was 2.59 for anesthesiology, 0.66 for neurosurgery and 0.75 for the high-impact clinical journals group. The retraction rate did not correlate with the citation metrics. However, the number of papers published in each journal and the absolute number of retractions showed a positive correlation with the citation metrics. The H-index showed stronger correlations with these parameters than the Impact factor. Conclusions The number of retractions increased in proportion to both the number of papers published in a journal and the citation metrics of that journal.

show abstract

“…Retraction styles vary, and most retractions give clear but limited information. A common view is that academic journals should explain the reasons for retractions in more detail and in a more standardized way (15,16). In this study, sometimes we need some help from PubPeer comments to figure out the reason for retractions, because the retraction notice is not clear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Retractions from Hospitals in Mainland China from 2017-2019

Zhao

Dai

Lun

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the features of retractions from hospitals in mainland China, and to discuss the causes of research misconduct by Chinese doctors.Research Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch Database were searched to collect eligible records and to extract characteristics of the included entries, including publishers and Open Access status of the journals involved, ORCID, PubPeer comments before the retraction, whether there are authors from Grade A, Third-class hospitals, and whether there are response or requirements from authors.Results: 521 retractions were included. Retractions were found primarily from authors of grade A, third-class hospitals, a limited regions, and published in journals with medium and high impact factor. The main reasons for retractions were Data Manipulation/Fabrication/Fraud(27.1%), Error by Author(19.9%), Plagiarism(16.7%), Self-Plagiarism(9.1%), Fake Peer Review(7.6%) and Forged Authorship(6.3%). Most of the retracted publications have neither ORCID nor PubPeer comments before their retraction.Conclusion: This is the first report focus on the retractions from hospitals in mainland China. The large number of retractions from Chinese hospitals in recent years is worrying. The results suggests that some retractions are related to third-parties. Some features of retractions are centralized, and it is difficult to evaluate the role of ORCID and PubPeer in the retractions during this period.

show abstract

Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis

Cited by 52 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Journal Retraction Rates and Citation Metrics: An Ouroboric Association?

Analysis of Retractions from Hospitals in Mainland China from 2017-2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About