The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

  title={The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019},
  author={Quan‐Hoang Vuong},
  journal={Learned Publishing},
  • Q. Vuong
  • Published 2020
  • Political Science, Computer Science
  • Learned Publishing
While researchers with retracted papers – publications that are withdrawn because of significant errors or scientific misconduct – carry a permanent stain on their publishing records, understanding the causes and initiators of such retractions can shed a different light on the matter. This paper, based on a random sample of 2,046 retracted papers, which were published between 1975 and 2019, extracted from Retraction Watch and the websites of major publishers, shows that 53% of the retraction… Expand
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction.
  • Shaoxiong Brian Xu, G. Hu
  • Medicine
  • Accountability in research
  • 2021
Drawing on data from the Web of Science Core Collection, this study examined 6,861 retraction notices published before 2020, in which authors were identified as the sole entities responsible for retraction. Expand
Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations
Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control. Expand
Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data
This paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation. Expand
Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors
  • B. Elango
  • Computer Science, Medicine
  • Scientometrics
  • 2021
The results show that most of the biomedical articles retracted were published after 2010 and common reasons are plagiarism and fake data for retraction. Expand
The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions
  • J. Ortega
  • Computer Science, History
  • Learn. Publ.
  • 2021
The results show that the relationship between them is scant, the increase in these notices is in proportion to the scientific literature, and the time delay between publication and editorial notice is frequently over 3 years. Expand
Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future.
In the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature, retraction of scientific articles is increasing and is most often related to scientific misconduct, including article duplication and plagiarism. Expand
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities accordingExpand
Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19
The initial results suggest that this belief that victims of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 include the quality and accuracy of scientific publications about it cannot be readily ignored, denied, dismissed or refuted, since some genuine supporting evidence can be forwarded for it. Expand
The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications
Different journal responses to human gene knockdown publications with a common reagent error type suggest that editorial staff require more support to interpret post-publication notifications of incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents. Expand
A study’s got to know its limitations
It is suggested that it might be beneficial to require a defined, structured statement about study limitations, either as part of the submission process, or clearly delineated within the manuscript. Expand


Empirical developments in retraction
Current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. Expand
Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings
Among the published statements in response to an official finding of misconduct (within the time frame studied), the proportion that mentioned ethics was significantly higher in recent years than in earlier years, as was theportion that named a specific problem. Expand
Post retraction citations in context: a case study
The results show that the vast majority of citations to retracted articles are positive despite of the clear retraction notice on the publisher’s platform and regardless of the reason for retraction. Expand
Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016)
The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Expand
Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
  • R. Steen
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Journal of Medical Ethics
  • 2010
The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a calculated effort to deceive, and it is inferred that such behaviour is neither naïve, feckless nor inadvertent. Expand
Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct or honest error, and there is evidence that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication is not fair or impartial. Expand
Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error
Preliminary results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self- retraction. Expand
A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature
The scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines were surveyed, and 15 prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. Expand
Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: • they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (eg, data fabrication) or honest errorExpand
Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review, and the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Expand