Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions

Abstract

Background Measures to ensure research integrity have been widely discussed due to the social, economic and scientific impact of research integrity. In the past few years, financial support for health research in emerging countries has steadily increased, resulting in a growing number of scientific publications. These achievements, however, have been accompanied by a rise in retracted publications followed by concerns about the quality and reliability of such publications. Objective This systematic review aimed to investigate the profile of medical and life sciences research retractions from authors affiliated with Brazilian academic institutions. The chronological trend between publication and retraction date, reasons for the retraction, citation of the article after the retraction, study design, and the number of retracted publications by author and affiliation were assessed. Additionally, the quality, availability and accessibility of data regarding retracted papers from the publishers are described. Methods Two independent reviewers searched for articles that had been retracted since 2004 via PubMed, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) and Google Scholar databases. Indexed keywords from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS) in Portuguese, English or Spanish were used. Data were also collected from the Retraction Watch website ( www.retractionwatch.com ). This study was registered with the PROSPERO systematic review database (CRD42017071647). Results A final sample of 65 articles was retrieved from 55 different journals with reported impact factors ranging from 0 to 32.86, with a median value of 4.40 and a mean of 4.69. The types of documents found were erratum (1), retracted articles (3), retracted articles with a retraction notice (5), retraction notices with erratum (3), and retraction notices (45). The assessment of the Retraction Watch website added 8 articles that were not identified by the search strategy using the bibliographic databases. The retracted publications covered a wide range of study designs. Experimental studies (40) and literature reviews (15) accounted for 84.6% of the retracted articles. Within the field of health and life sciences, medical science was the field with the largest number of retractions (34), followed by biological sciences (17). Some articles were retracted for at least two distinct reasons (13). Among the retrieved articles, plagiarism was the main reason for retraction (60%). Missing data were found in 57% of the retraction notices, which was a limitation to this review. In addition, 63% of the articles were cited after their retraction. Conclusion Publications are not retracted solely for research misconduct but also for honest error. Nevertheless, considering authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, this review concluded that most of the retracted health...

An Analysis of Retracted Articles with Authors or Co-authors from the African Region: Possible Implications for Training and Awareness Raising

“…Of the three major forms of research misconduct (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000), plagiarism (79 instances) was much more prevalent than fabrication or falsification, with only 12 instances recorded. In fact, it appears that problems with publication ethics—notably plagiarism, as well as duplication of articles (70 instances) and authorship issues (22 instances)—can be regarded as an issue that warrants more attention on the African continent as well as globally (Damineni et al, 2015; Grieneisen and Zhang, 2012; Stavale et al, 2019; Wager and Williams, 2011). Plagiarism has been identified as an issue that tends to be more prevalent in low- and middle-income countries where lack of training and awareness, combined with limited resources, cultural factors, and language barriers have been listed as possible reasons (Ana et al, 2013; Hesselmann et al, 2017; Rohwer et al, 2017; Stretton et al, 2012).…”

“…Authors such as Schmidt (2018) indicated that there is scope for improvement in formulation of journal policies on retraction and a need to use standard terminology in the formulation of retraction notices. Others such as Hosseini et al (2018) and Stavale et al (2019) urged for a clearer distinction between retractions that are due to good science citizenship, such as corrections or revisions, and retractions that are due to misconduct or questionable research practices.…”

Comments on “Correlation of Cognitive Resilience, Cognitive Flexibility and Impulsivity in Attempted Suicide”

“…[4] Insufficient analysis reduces its validity and the readers may not show any interest in the aforementioned implications of the study. [5] In this study,[1] the results look spurious and extremely theoretical, with no practical validity. The authors should have used appropriate tests to make conclusions from their data because various errors have been overlooked, which reduces the utility of this study.…”

Plagiarism in scientific publications

“…Public retraction associated with publications may be due to misconduct, gross errors or fraud, with plagiarism being the main factor. 5 From a writing point of view, plagiarism can be considered substantially copying and pasting, making a literal copy of a text, paraphrasing (placing words in the middle of copied text), or recycling a text (self-plagiarism). 6 We can also divide plagiarism into four main forms: 7 • Form: it represents the copy of sentences or sentences taken from another text; • Content: uses previous data, without the given express authorization of the author, such as definitions, figures, and images;…”