Publication retractions – A comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 in biomedical literature.

 

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defined retraction as “a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest  error or from research misconduct” [1].

Recently, Damineni and colleagues have conducted a study to investigate multiple parameters associated to paper retraction and to study the current trends of retraction over a period of two years, between 2012 and 2013.

The authors have retrieved from MEDLINE, on January 2014, all articles retracted using the three keywords “retraction of articles”, “retraction notice”, and “withdrawal of articles”. Articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 were included in the analysis

The authors have shown that a total of 155 articles were retracted in 2012 and 182 in 2013. They also found that the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.

According to this study, mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission are the most cited reasons for retraction (Table below; Damineni  et al.).

temp

The authors observed that reasons for retraction were honest errors (28%), redundant publication (17%), and plagiarism (16%).

“This is an alarming situation since it is a disgraceful act in a scientific writing and represents one of the biggest challenges faced by the scholarly world and and by far a grim form of delinquency in academics”.

Concluded the authors who recommended that

“editors should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and make an effective strategy in order to reduce such misconduct, as it reflects very adversely not only in the scientific community but also in the general public”.

 

Read the article online:

A comprehensive comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 from the scholarly literature.
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;5(1):19-23.
doi:10.4103/2231-0762.151968. Review.
PubMed PMID: 25767762

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Comments

  1. After inspection of these articles and illustrations, and after discussion with the corresponding author of both articles, it was revealed that this is a case of partial overlap, i.e. of the authors presenting new findings that contain a comparatively small amount of previously published information. By publishing this corrigendum the journal is providing appropriate cross- referencing to the earlier work.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*