Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of retracted articles with Chinese authors has raised much attention, but no systematic study has specifically explored the retraction of academic publications by researchers from mainland China. Here, we determined the characteristics of retracted publications from mainland China in the biomedical literature. We searched the Medline database through PubMed and Web of Science to identify retracted publications with first authors from mainland China. Data for 825 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 1999. We found that 651 retractions were for articles published in journals with relatively low impact factors (< 5). Commonest reasons for retraction were plagiarism (192), errors (159), duplicate publication (143), and invalid peer review (137). Authors of retracted articles were from 28 of the 31 provinces in mainland China. The number of retracted articles from mainland China has shown an increasing trend. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. Retracted articles originated from most provinces in China and were published in numerous journals. These findings indicate that misconduct issues are widespread in China. Results of this study highlight the need to take measures to prevent misconduct among Chinese researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almeida, R. M., De, A. R. K., Catelani, F., Fontespereira, A. J., & Vasconcelos, S. M. (2015). Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major latin american/caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2017). Chinese and Iranian scientific publications: Fast growth and poor ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bois, P. R., Izeradjene, K., Houghton, P. J., Cleveland, J. L., Houghton, J. A., & Grosveldz, G. C. (2007). FOXO1a acts as a selective tumor suppressor in alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. The Journal of Cell Biology, 177(3), 563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bu, J. (2013). Retraction analysis of Chinese authors in biomedicine. Acta Editologica, 25(6), 571–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Pan, Y., Yao, Q., Yao, L., Liu, Z., & Xiang, L. (2014). Publication pressure on Chinese doctors—Another view. The Lancet, 384(9947), 956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W. H., & Ren, S. L. (2016). Investigation on article processing charge for OA papers from the world’s major countries. Chinese Science Bulletin, 61(26), 2861–2868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, O. (2015). Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. BMJ: British Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1783.

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. (2016). One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds. Resource document. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/19/one-in-25-papers-contains-inappropriately-duplicated-images-screen-finds/.

  • Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo, J. Y. A. (2011). A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(25), 2393–2395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, H., & Xia, H. X. (2014). Science citation index papers and research performance assessment:an overview of editing companies. Medicine & Philosophy, 35(10A), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindawi Publishing. (2015). Hindawi concludes an in-depth investigation into peer review fraud. Resource document. http://www.hindawi.com/statement/.

  • Hinnerk, F. D. (2017). Journal that holds record for retracted papers also has a problem with editorial board members. Resource document. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/journal-holds-record-retracted-papers-also-has-problem-editorial-board-members.

  • Huh, S., Kim, S. Y., & Cho, H. M. (2016). Characteristics of retractions from Korean medical journals in the KoreaMed database: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendahl, M. (2015). China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science, 350(6264), 1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P., Chang, C. Q., Lam, T. K., Schully, S. D., & Khoury, M. J. (2013). The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J., Li, J., & Zhou, B. (2016). Analysis on the attitude of title bundled with paper in professional medical staffs. Chinese Hospitals, 20(11), 35–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7.

  • Leopold, S. S. (2016). Editorial: CORR’s new peer-reviewer tool—Useful for more than peer reviews. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474(11), 2321–2322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Q. J., Zhang, Y. Y., Fan, Y. C., Zheng, M. H., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., et al. (2017). Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: A comparison between 2015 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3.

  • Luo, J., Jiang, P., Li, S. F., & Wu, Y. C. (2016). Investigation and consideration on the value cognition of SCI papers in hospitals. China Modern Medicine, 23(35), 162–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mara, H. (2014). Copycat papers flag continuing headache in China. Resource document. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/copycat-papers-flag-continuing-headache-China.

  • McCook, A. (2016a). How fake peer review happens: An impersonated reviewer speaks. Resource document. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/15/more-details-on-the-bmcspringer-retraction-ring-an-impersonated-reviewer-speaks/#more-46134.

  • McCook, A. (2016b). Ever heard of China’s “five don’ts of academic publishing?”. Resource document. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/20/ever-heard-of-chinas-five-donts-of-academic-publishing/#more-45364.

  • McCook, A. (2017). Can a tracking system for peer reviewers help stop fakes? Resource document. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/23/can-tracking-system-peer-reviewers-help-stop-fakes/#more-50733.

  • Moiwo, J. P., & Tao, F. (2013). The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1031–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Research Integrity. (2012). Findings of misconduct in science/research misconduct. Resource document. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-084.html.

  • Plagiarism Watch. (2016). Eight new Chinese-authored papers published in four journals added to the scandal of “Working Hand in Glove: Scientific Ghostwriting Company and the Predatory Journal Targeting Chinese Authors”. Resource document. http://plagiarismwatch.org/?p=1844.

  • Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, X., Deng, H., & Guo, X. (2016). Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: An overview. Postgraduate Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-133969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi, X., Ren, W., Liu, L., Yang, Z., Yang, M., Fan, D., et al. (2013). Prevalence of covert duplicate publications in Budd-Chiari syndrome articles in China: A systematic analysis. The American journal of medicine, 126(7), 633–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, M. (2015). COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes. Maturitas, 80(4), 339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Lichter, D., & Editorial Policy Committee. (2012). CSE’s White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Using Anonymous Reviewers: Critique of the Process. Resource document. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/#234.

  • Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., et al. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28(10), 1575–1583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, X., & Song, G. M. (2015). China’s medical research integrity. The Lancet, 386(10002), e17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. D., Chang, H., Brandt, A., Gao, X., Lin, M., Luo, J., et al. (2011). An empirical analysis of overlap publication in Chinese language and English research manuscripts. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 64(4), 201–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(9), 567–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, H. F., Xu, W. D., & Hu, H. Y. (2013). Young Chinese doctors and the pressure of publication. The Lancet, 381(9864), e4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, W., & Resnik, D. (2010). Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing world bioethics, 10(3), 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (2010). Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature, 467(7312), 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. J., & Zhu, Y. (2016). China’s graduate students need better education in scientific writing and publishing. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 17(5), 409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province (20168359). The authors would like to thank Medjaden Bioscience Limited that help editing and proofreading this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Wei Chen and Qin-Rui Xing contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency and Intensive Care Unit, Hainan Branch of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Sanya, 572013, Hainan, China

    Wei Chen, Qin-Rui Xing, Hui Wang & Tao Wang

Authors
  1. Wei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qin-Rui Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tao Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, W., Xing, QR., Wang, H. et al. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics 114, 217–227 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2565-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2565-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation