Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals
- 338 Downloads
The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.
KeywordsRetracted publications Open access journals Plagiarism Duplicate publication
Funding was provided by the Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province (Grant No. 20168359).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Almeida, R. M. V. R., de Albuquerque Rocha, K., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A. J., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2016). Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-0159714-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cat Ferguson. (2015). BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review. Retrieved Jan 11, 2018 from https://retractionwatch.com/?s=BioMed+Central+retracting+43+papers+for+fake+peer+review.
- Chen, C., Hu, Z., Milbank, J., & Schultz, T. (2013). A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 234–253.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
- Davis, P. (2009). Open access publisher accepts nonsense manuscript for dollars. The scholarly kitchen. Retrieved July 31, 2017 from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/.
- Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104.Google Scholar
- Ivan Oransky. (2010). What people are saying about Retraction Watch. Retrieved May 31, 2017 from http://retractionwatch.com/what-people-are-saying-about-retraction-watch/.
- 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
- Liao, Q. J., Zhang, Y. Y., Fan, Y. C., Zheng, M. H., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., He, X. X., Zhang, S. B., Xia, H. H. X. & He, H. (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.Google Scholar
- 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
- McCook, A. (2016). Ever heard of China’s “five don’ts of academic publishing?”. Retrieved April 25, 2017 from http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/20/ever-heard-of-chinas-five-donts-of-academic-publishing/#more45364.
- McCook, A. (2017a). Can a tracking system for peer reviewers help stop fakes? Retrieved Jan 11, 2018 from http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/23/can-tracking-system-peer-reviewers-help-stop-fakes/#more-507.
- McCook, A. (2017b). When a journal retracts 107 papers for fake reviews, it pays a price. 2017. Retrieved Jan 11, 2018 from http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/16/journal-retracts-107-papers-fake-reviews-pays-price/.
- Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. British Medical Journal Open, 6(11), e012047.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.
- Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A Bibliographic analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2428–2436.Google Scholar
- Qi, X., Deng, H., & Guo, X. (2016). Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: An overview. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 93(1102), postgradmedj-2016.Google Scholar
- Suber, P. (2007). Will open access undermine peer review? The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue 113; 2009.Google Scholar
- Watson, R. (2016). PubPeer: Never heard of it? You have now. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(1), 2.Google Scholar