Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010
- Tianwei He
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Retraction is a self-cleaning activity done in the global science community. In this study, the retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010 was quantitatively analyzed by using the Science Citation Index Expanded. The results indicated that the number of retractions increased faster compared to the number of global scientific publications. Three very different patterns of retraction existed in each field. In the multi-disciplinary category and in the life sciences, retraction was relatively active. The impact factor strongly correlated with the number of retractions, but did not significantly correlate with the rate of retraction. Although the increases in the number of publications in China, India, and South Korea were faster, their retraction activities were higher than the worldwide average level.
- Budd, J. M., Sievert, M. E., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 280(3), 296–297.
- Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. CrossRef
- Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859. CrossRef
- Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevalld, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. CrossRef
- Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. CrossRef
- Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367. CrossRef
- Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistake. Medical Journal of Australia, 185(3), 152–154.
- Pudovkin, A.I., & Garfield, E. (2004). Rank-normalized impact factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories. Presented at the American Society for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting, Providence. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/asistranknormalization2004.pdf.
- Samp, J. C., Schumock, G. T., & Pickard, A. S. (2012). Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy, 32(7), 586–595. CrossRef
- Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291. CrossRef
- Sen, B. K. (1992). Normalised impact factor. Journal of Documentation, 48(3), 318–325. CrossRef
- Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117. CrossRef
- Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010
Volume 96, Issue 2 , pp 555-561
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Impact factor
- Industry Sectors
- Tianwei He (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. College of Life Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun, 130012, People’s Republic of China