Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries
- 1.5k Downloads
The research output of countries is among the indicators that help us understand the dynamics of science. Increasingly, these dynamics have been marked by changes in scientific communication. Researchers’ attitudes toward open science, alternative models of publication and toward originality are among the elements shaping the current scientific landscape. This changing panorama reflects on the attitude of authors, editors and publishers toward the correction of the literature, a practice that is encountered to different extents in different fields. This practice may suggest, among several issues, commitment of the scientific community to boosting the reliability of the research record. Would the research output of countries have any association with this panorama? We analyzed 1623 retractions issued in 2013–2015 and discussed in Retraction Watch (RW), www.retractionwatch.com. These retractions account for a considerable fraction of the total of retraction notices in PubMed in the same period. They were categorized by reason, field and country (that of the corresponding author). These retractions were distributed among 71 countries, with 15 countries accounting for a major share (85%)—most of those with the largest number of publications in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). However, there is no consistent pattern for the relationship between ranking in SJR and ranking in number of retractions across countries in our RW dataset, which is skewed mostly by the fact that the RW website tends to post newsworthy retractions, with a bias toward biomedical and clinical sciences. This caveat notwithstanding, the prevalence of the most productive countries in our dataset of retractions is worth noting. Gradually, retractions have been permeating the dynamics of research productivity in many countries but, so far, there is limited knowledge of this interaction. We believe it should be further explored.
KeywordsRetractions Correction of the literature Science indicators Research output
We thank Ivan Oransky for useful information on particularities of the Retraction Watch website. Miguel Roig and Martha Sorenson are also acknowledged for their suggestions and critical reading of the manuscript. We also thank Alison Abritis who made valuable commentary in earlier versions. The interpretation of the data is the sole responsibility of the authors. The first author acknowledges support from the Coordination for the Advancement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).
- Academy of Medical Science. (2015). Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: Improving research practice. Technical report.Google Scholar
- Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007a). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bohannon, J. (2014). Study of massive prepint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/study-massive-preprint-archive-hints-geography-plagiarism. Accessed in November 2017.
- Butler, N., Delaney, H., Spoelstra, S. (2015).The grey zone: How questionable research practices are blurring the boundary between science and misconduct. Times Higher Education https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/grey-zone-how-questionable-research-practices-are-blurring-boundary-between-science-and. Accessed in November 2017.
- Colquhoun, D. (2011). Publish or perish: Peer review and the corruption of science. The Guardian, London, United Kingdom. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science. Accessed in April 2017.
- Corbyn, Z. (2009). Retractions up tenfold. Higher Education: Times. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/407838.article. Accessed in April 2017.
- Council of Science Editors. (2012). Editorial policies. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/3-5-correcting-the-literature/. Accessed in October 2017.
- Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/dl.html. Accessed in October 2017.
- Enserink, M. (2017). How to avoid the stigma of a retracted paper? Don’t call it a retraction. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/how-avoid-stigma-retracted-paper-dont-call-it-retraction. Accessed in November 2017.
- Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., Small, H. (1983). Essays of an Information Scientist (Vol. 6, p. 580) (Reprinted from Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators, by Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray & H. Zuckerman, Eds., 1978, NY: John Wiley & Sons). http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p580y1983.pdf.
- Garfield, E. (1987). The Anomie-Deviant Behavior Connection: The Theories of Durkheim, Merton, and Srole. Current Contents, 39. In Essays of an Information Scientist (Vol. 10, pp. 272–281). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p272y1987.pdf.
- Garfield, E. (1989). Evaluating research: Do bibliometric indicators provide the best measures? http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p093y1989.pdf. Accessed in April 2017.
- Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase 'publish or perish'? The Scientist, 10(12), 11.Google Scholar
- Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.Google Scholar
- Gevers, M. (2014). Scientific performance indicators: A critical appraisal and a country-by-country analysis. http://www.portlandpresspublishing.com/sites/default/files/Editorial/Wenner/WG_87/WG_87_chapter%205.pdf. Accessed in April 2017.
- Giofrè, D., Cumming, G., Fresc, L., Boedker, I., & Tressoldi, P. (2017). The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175583.
- Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A., Fiack, S., Scott-Lichter, D., & Robinson, A. (2007). Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A publisher’s perspective. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 61(152), 1–26.Google Scholar
- International Commitee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2017). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed in November 2017.
- Journal Citation Reports (JCR). https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/.
- King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 267–276. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p093y1989.pdf. Accessed in April 2017.
- Lancet. (2015). Correcting the scientific literature: Retraction and republication. Lancet, 385(9966), 394.Google Scholar
- Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports, 3(3146), 1–5.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980JS04600001.pdf. Accessed in October 2017.
- OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9294041e.pdf?expires=1508687835&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4DD43855CEB9E9D188A379D6465DBC84. Accessed in September 2017.
- OSTP. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, 65, 76260–76264.Google Scholar
- PLOS One. (2017). Authorship. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship. Accessed in November 2017.
- Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accounting Research, 22(1), 14–21.Google Scholar
- Retraction Watch. www.retractionwatch.com.
- Retraction Watch. (2013a). http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/27/stiff-sentence-for-french-researcher-found-guilty-of-plagiarizing.
- Retraction Watch. (2013b). http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/26/fourth-retraction-for-chemists-in-iran/.
- Retraction Watch. (2017). http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/03/happy-birthday-retraction-watch-7-update-database/.
- Retraction Watch. James Hunton archive. http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/james-hunton/.
- Retraction Watch. Diederik Stapel archive. http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/diederik-stapel/.
- RPubs. (2017). PubMed retractions report. https://rpubs.com/neilfws/65778. Accessed in November 2017.
- Science Europe. (2015). Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it’: D/2015/13.324/9. http://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Briefing_Paper_Research_Integrity_web.pdf. Accessed in December 2017.
- SCImago, SJR: Scimago Journal & Country Rank. http://www.scimagojr.com.
- Starovoytova, D. (2017). Plagiarism under a magnifying-glass. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(15), 109–129.Google Scholar