Scientometrics

, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 555–561 | Cite as

Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Retraction Impact factor Bibliometrics 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Samp, J. C., Schumock, G. T., & Pickard, A. S. (2012). Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy, 32(7), 586–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sen, B. K. (1992). Normalised impact factor. Journal of Documentation, 48(3), 318–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Life SciencesJilin UniversityChangchunPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations