The impact of affiliation naming proximity on the retrieval efficiency of Chinese universities-affiliated retractions in the Retraction Watch Database.

The Retraction Watch Database (RWDB) is widely used to retrieve retraction data. However, its lack of affiliation normalization hinders the retrieval efficiency of retraction data for specific research-performing organizations. A query for a university name in the RWDB may yield retraction data entries for other universities with similar names, giving rise to the issue of affiliation naming proximity. This study assessed the impact of this issue on the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 2,692 Chinese university names in English. The analysis revealed that the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 206 Chinese university names can be influenced by 408 university names. As of 2022, the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 96 Chinese university names was compromised by the involvement of 402 university names, resulting in an overall retraction inflation rate of 37.9% and an average rate of 45.0%. The findings highlight the importance of curating retraction data through affiliation-specific queries in the RWDB, adhering to the official English names of Chinese universities for scholarly publishing, and adopting the Research Organization Registry system for affiliation disambiguation. Given the significance of this issue concerning the English names of universities in non-English-speaking countries, the identified causes of the problem and proposed solutions can offer valuable insights for improving the retrieval of retraction records for non-Chinese universities in the RWDB.

[Analysis of the characteristics of retracted scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars].

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars that were retracted for diverse reasons from the Retraction Watch database, so as to provide a reference to publishing-related papers. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was retrieved for retracted papers in the field of global liver disease published by Chinese scholars from March 1, 2008 to January 28, 2021. The regional distribution, source journals, reasons for retraction, publication and retraction times, and others were analyzed. Results: A total of 101 retracted papers that were distributed across 21 provinces/cities were retrieved. Zhejiang area (n = 17) had the most retracted papers, followed by Shanghai (n = 14), and Beijing (n = 11). The vast majority were research papers (n = 95). The journal PLoS One had the highest number of retracted papers. In terms of time distribution, 2019 (n = 36) had the most retracted papers. 23 papers, accounting for 8.3% of all retractions, were retracted owing to journal or publisher concerns. Liver cancer (34%), liver transplantation (16%), hepatitis (14%), and others were the main areas of retracted papers. Conclusion: Chinese scholars have a large number of retracted articles in the field of global liver diseases. A journal or publisher chooses to retract a manuscript after investigating and discovering more flawed problems, which, however, require further support, revision, and supervision from the editorial and academic circles.

Analysis of the characteristics of retracted scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars / 中华肝脏病杂志

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars that were retracted for diverse reasons from the Retraction Watch database, so as to provide a reference to publishing-related papers. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was retrieved for retracted papers in the field of global liver disease published by Chinese scholars from March 1, 2008 to January 28, 2021. The regional distribution, source journals, reasons for retraction, publication and retraction times, and others were analyzed. Results: A total of 101 retracted papers that were distributed across 21 provinces/cities were retrieved. Zhejiang area (n = 17) had the most retracted papers, followed by Shanghai (n = 14), and Beijing (n = 11). The vast majority were research papers (n = 95). The journal PLoS One had the highest number of retracted papers. In terms of time distribution, 2019 (n = 36) had the most retracted papers. 23 papers, accounting for 8.3% of all retractions, were retracted owing to journal or publisher concerns. Liver cancer (34%), liver transplantation (16%), hepatitis (14%), and others were the main areas of retracted papers. Conclusion: Chinese scholars have a large number of retracted articles in the field of global liver diseases. A journal or publisher chooses to retract a manuscript after investigating and discovering more flawed problems, which, however, require further support, revision, and supervision from the editorial and academic circles.

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves. RESULTS: We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results. CONCLUSION: Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature.

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. / Análisis de los artículos españoles de biomedicina retractados entre 1970 y 2018.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To analyse articles retracted due to irregularities by authors helps to determine the state of scientific integrity of a discipline or country. The Retraction Watch (RW) database is the largest worldwide database on retracted articles. The objective was to determine the reasons for and features of retracted biomedical articles by Spanish authors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted in the RW database of 7 types of scientific articles from 9 biomedicine disciplines -biology, genetics, medicine, microbiology, neurosciences, nutrition, dentistry, public health and toxicology-, with at least one author working in a Spanish centre, and published between 1970 and 2018. The features of the articles and the reasons for their retraction were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 18,621 retracted articles, 217 (1%) were by Spanish authors; 155 (74%) were on biomedicine and the types of articles of interest. In most cases, there were several reasons for retracting an article. Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) and duplication were involved in 25% and 35% of the cases, respectively. Twenty-two percent of the articles were retracted due to errors by the authors or the journals. A dentist retracted 18 articles -all from the same journal and in the same year, 2018-, which accounts for 12% of all retracted biomedicine articles. CONCLUSION: The number of retracted biomedicine articles by Spanish authors is low. Research misconduct was a frequent reason, with a similar percentage of articles retracted due to honest errors.