Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data.

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

INTRODUCTION: The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN: This was an exploratory study. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION: Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.

BACKGROUND: Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan. METHODS: Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained. RESULTS: Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices. RESULTS: A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.

BACKGROUND: Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations. METHODS: The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons. RESULTS: A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30). CONCLUSION: Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction. METHODS: Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment. RESULTS: Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted. CONCLUSION: The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.

Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.

Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review.

"Paper mills" are unethical outsourcing agencies proficient in fabricating fraudulent manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In earlier years, the activity of such companies involved plagiarism, but their processes have gained complexity, involving the fabrication of images and fake results. The objective of this study is to examine the main features of retracted paper mills' articles registered in the Retraction Watch database, from inception to the present, analyzing the number of articles per year, their number of citations, and their authorship network. Eligibility criteria for inclusion: retracted articles in any language due to paper mill activity. Retraction letters, notes, and notices, for exclusion. We collected the associated citations and the journals' impact factors of the retracted papers from Web of Science (Clarivate) and performed a data network analysis using VOSviewer software. This scoping review complies with PRISMA 2020 statement and main extensions. After a thorough analysis of the data, we identified 325 retracted articles due to suspected operations published in 31 journals (with a mean impact factor of 3.1). These retractions have produced 3708 citations. Nearly all retracted papers have come from China. Journal's impact factor lower than 7, life sciences journals, cancer, and molecular biology topics were common among retracted studies. The rapid increase of retractions is highly challenging. Paper mills damage scientific research integrity, exacerbating fraud, plagiarism, fake images, and simulated results. Rheumatologists should be fully aware of this growing phenomenon.

Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles.

Objective: To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions. Methods: A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal. Conclusions: The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.

Learning from Retracted Papers Authored by the Highly Cited Iran-affiliated Researchers: Revisiting Research Policies and a Key Message to Clarivate Analytics.

Reasons underlying retractions of papers authored by the Iran-affiliated highly cited researchers (HCRs) have not been documented. Here, we report that 229 of the Iran-affiliated researchers were listed by the Clarivate Analytics as HCRs. We investigated the Retraction Watch Database and found that, in total, 51 papers authored by the Iran-affiliated HCRs were retracted from 2006 to 2019. Twenty-three of the 229 HCRs (10%) had at least one paper retracted. One of the listed HCRs had 22 papers retracted; 14 of the 23 (60.8%) had only one paper retracted. Among the 51 retracted papers, three had been authored by two female authors. Eight (16.8%) retracted papers had international co-authorships. The shortest and longest times from publication to retraction were 20 and 2610 (mean ± SD, 857 ± 616) days, respectively. Of the 51 papers, 43 (84%) had a single reason for retraction, whereas eight had multiple reasons. Among the 43 papers, 23 (53%) were retracted due to fake peer-review, eight (19%) were duplications, six (14%) had errors, four (9%) had plagiarism, and two (5%) were labelled as "limited or no information." Duplication of data, which is easily preventable, amounted to 27%. Any publishing oversight committed by an HCR may not be tolerated because they represent the stakeholders of the scientific literature and stand as role-models for other peer researchers. Future policies supporting the Iranian academia should radically change by implementation of educational and awareness programs on publishing ethics to reduce the rate of retractions in Iran.

Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood. METHODS: Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication. RESULTS: Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction. CONCLUSIONS: Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.

Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles / Velocidad de publicación y retractación de artículos originales sobre la pandemia de COVID-19 / Velocidade de publicação científica e retratação de artigos originais sobre a pandemia de COVID-19

ABSTRACT Objective. To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions. Methods. A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Results. There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal. Conclusions. The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.

RESUMEN Objetivo. Describir el tiempo de procesamiento editorial de los artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 publicados, compararlo con un tema similar, la gripe humana, y analizar el número de publicaciones realizadas, el de artículos retirados y el de retractaciones. Métodos. Usando PubMed, se llevó a cabo un estudio descriptivo y analítico sobre artículos de investigación con los términos en inglés correspondientes a "gripe humana" y "COVID-19" en el MeSH. Se compararon el tiempo de aceptación (desde la presentación hasta la aceptación) y el tiempo de publicación (desde la aceptación hasta la publicación). Se examinaron las publicaciones retiradas y las retractaciones de manera cualitativa y cuantitativa. Resultados. Hubo 31 319 artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 y 4 287 sobre la gripe humana publicados en el año 2020. La mediana del tiempo de aceptación de los artículos sobre la COVID-19 fue inferior que la mediana de la gripe humana (8 días en contraste con 92 días). La mediana del tiempo de publicación de los artículos sobre la COVID-19 fue menor que la de los artículos sobre la gripe humana (12 días en contraste con 16 días). El 47,0 % de los artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 se aceptaron en la primera semana de presentación, y el 19,5 %, en un día. Hubo 82 retractaciones y retiradas de artículos sobre la COVID-19, una sobre la gripe humana y 5 de artículos que contenían ambos términos; estas retractaciones y retiradas estuvieron relacionadas principalmente con faltas de conducta ética. Además, hubo 27 artículos (31,0 %) publicados por el mismo grupo de autores en una revista de cuartil más alto. Conclusiones. El dilema entre la publicación rápida y unas normas adecuadas se muestra en este análisis de artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19. La velocidad de aceptación de los manuscritos sobre la COVID-19 fue 11,5 veces mayor que la velocidad de aceptación de los artículos sobre la gripe humana. El alto número de aceptaciones en un día o una semana desde la presentación y el número de retractaciones y retiradas de artículos sobre la COVID-19 podría ser un signo de advertencia acerca de la posible falta de un proceso de control de calidad en las publicaciones científicas y especialmente en el proceso de arbitraje.

RESUMO Objetivo. Descrever o tempo de processamento editorial dos artigos de pesquisa publicados sobre COVID-19, compará-lo com o de artigos sobre um tema semelhante (gripe humana) e analisar o número de publicações, suspensões e retratações. Métodos. Estudo descritivo-analítico. Foi realizada uma busca no PubMed usando os descritores MeSH "human influenza" e "COVID-19". O tempo até a aceitação (da submissão à aceitação) e o tempo até a publicação (da aceitação à publicação) foram comparados. Retratações e suspensões foram analisadas qualitativa e quantitativamente. Resultados. Foram publicados 31 319 artigos de pesquisa sobre a COVID-19 e 4 287 sobre a gripe humana em 2020. O tempo médio de aceitação de artigos sobre COVID-19 foi menor que o de artigos sobre gripe humana (8 versus 92 dias). O tempo médio até publicação dos artigos sobre COVID-19 foi menor que o de artigos sobre gripe humana (12 versus 16 dias); 47,0% dos artigos sobre COVID-19 foram aceitos na primeira semana após a submissão, e 19,5%, dentro de um dia. Houve 82 retratações e suspensões de artigos sobre COVID-19, 1 sobre gripe humana, e 5 de artigos que continham ambos os termos, principalmente relacionadas a má conduta ética; 27 (31,0%) desses artigos foram publicados pelo mesmo grupo de autores, em uma revista do mais alto quartil. Conclusões. O dilema entre publicar rapidamente e manter padrões adequados fica claro nesta análise de artigos sobre COVID-19. Manuscritos sobre COVID-19 foram aceitos 11,5 vezes mais rapidamente do que artigos sobre gripe humana. O alto número de aceitações em um dia ou semana após a submissão e o número de retratações e suspensões de artigos sobre COVID-19 alertam sobre uma possível falta de controle de qualidade na publicação científica e no processo de revisão por pares.

Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.

Retractions of scientific papers published by some Iran-affiliated scientists in the preceding decade have attracted much attention and publicity; however, the reasons for these retractions have not been documented. We searched the Retraction Watch Database to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and aimed to outline the predominant reasons for retractions. The reasons included fake peer-review, authorship dispute, fabricated data, plagiarism, conflict of interest, erroneous data, and duplication. The Fisher's exact test was used to investigate the associations between retractions and their underlying reasons. We selected P < 0.05 to indicate the statistically significant differences. We found 697 retracted papers. Duplication (27%), plagiarism (26%), and fake peer-review (21%) were the most frequent reasons for retractions. Our study highlights the importance of urgent intervention to prevent the misconduct and questionable research practices that lead to retractions in Iran. Continually educating the scientists and postgraduate students about the ethics and norms of scientific publishing is an important measure to ensure publication of reliable, worthy, and impactful papers.

Retractions in Rehabilitation and Sport Sciences Journals: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the characteristics of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals. DATA SOURCES: The Web of Science, PubMed, and Retraction Watch databases were searched from inception to August 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Retracted publications published in rehabilitation or sport sciences journals, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted the data. Two other authors checked the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 37 and 52 retracted publications and their retraction notices were identified for rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. The majority of retracted publications (68% of all retracted papers in rehabilitation and 54% of all retracted papers in sport sciences) were published in the past decade. Retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences were published in 21 and 22 different journals and originated from 18 and 21 different countries, respectively. The full-text of the retracted publications was available with a retraction watermark or note for 59% of cases in rehabilitation and 58% in sport sciences. The reasons for the retractions were more often attributed to misconduct (79% and 61%) than to honest error (21% and 39%) in rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. However, a reason was not stated for 15% of the publications. The median time interval between publication and retraction was 622 days in rehabilitation and 607 days in sport sciences publications. CONCLUSIONS: The total number of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals was small. The retracted publications have been published in a variety of rehabilitation and sport sciences journals and came from different countries across the world. Several retracted publications and retraction notices failed to adhere to The Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines in the handling of full-text (retain with a watermark or note) or stating the underlying reasons for the retraction.

Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications.

INTRODUCTION: As MEDLINE indexers tag similar articles as duplicates even when journals have not addressed the duplication(s), we sought to determine the reasons behind the tagged duplications, and if the journals had undertaken or had planned to undertake any actions to address them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 16 January 2013, we extracted all tagged duplicate publications (DPs), analysed published notices, and then contacted MEDLINE and editors regarding cases unaddressed by notices. For non-respondents, we compared full text of the articles. We followed up the study for the next 5 years to see if any changes occurred. RESULTS: We found 1011 indexed DPs, which represented 555 possible DP cases (in MEDLINE, both the original and the duplicate are assigned a DP tag). Six cases were excluded as we could not obtain their full text. Additional 190 (35%) cases were incorrectly tagged as DPs. Of 359 actual cases of DPs, 200 (54%) were due to publishers' actions (e.g. identical publications in the same journal), and 159 (46%) due to authors' actions (e.g. article submission to more than one journal). Of the 359 cases, 185 (52%) were addressed by notices, but only 25 (7%) retracted. Following our notifications, MEDLINE corrected 138 (73%) incorrectly tagged cases, and editors retracted 8 articles. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear policies on how to handle DPs, just half (54%) of the DPs in MEDLINE were addressed by journals and only 9% retracted. Publishers, editors, and indexers need to develop and implement standards for better correction of duplicate published records.

An analysis of retractions of dental publications.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively report on the characteristics of retracted publications in the field of dentistry. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), PubMed Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases for dental retracted articles from database inception to 02 July 2018. In addition, we scanned the search engine Google Scholar, and the website, Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com), for retracted dental articles. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text of search results. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and time between publication and retraction. Regression models were used to evaluate the association between journal impact factor and retraction characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 138 retractions of dental articles were included. Reasons for retraction were misconduct (N = 100, 72.5%), with the most frequently reported misconduct being overlap/plagiarism and innacurate/falsified conducting and reporting (N = 53, 38.4%). In vitro (N = 39, 28.3%), case reports (N = 29, 21%) and narrative reviews (N = 19, 13.8%) were study design most frequently identified in retracted articles. The median time between article publication and date of retraction notice was 1 year (interquartile-range [IQR] = 0-2 years). More than half of the retracted articles (n = 82, 59.4%) were cited post-retraction. A retracted article reporting a randomized controlled trial was more likely to appear in journal with higher impact factor than a retracted case report (mean difference [MD] = 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2,3.1. Articles retracted after 2012 were likely to appear in journals with a lower impact factor (MD=-1.3; 95%CI=-1.8, 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Research misconduct is the main reason for retraction of dental articles. A substantial proportion of these articles were still being cited after their retraction. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This report of dental retraction articles informs that more transparency is needed with data reporting in dentistry to improve writing practices in dentistry. A more complete report of retractions and their causes would provide more accurate information to inform researchers and editors to avoid or reduce future cases of retractions. More complete and accurate reporting would increase the overall trust in dental research.

Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices. RESULTS: From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction.