An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes?
- 21 Downloads
Retracted publications are a crucial, yet overlooked, issue in the scientific community. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence, characteristics and reasons of Malaysian retracted papers. The Web of Science and Scopus databases were queried to identify Malaysian retracted publications. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. The publications were assessed for various characteristics, including reason for retraction, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, and the authority calling for the retractions. From 2009 to June 2017, 125 Malaysian publications comprising (33 journal articles and 92 conference papers) were retracted. There was a spike in the prevalence of retracted articles in 2010 and 2012 with 42 articles (33.6%) and 41 articles (32.8%) respectively from the 125 retracted articles. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 1 year. There is no significant relationship between a journal quartile and the mean number of months to retraction (P = 0.842). The reason for retraction for conference papers was specified as “violation of publication principle”. Journal articles were retracted mainly for duplicate publication, plagiarism, compromised peer review process, and self-plagiarism. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and only 2 retracted articles have been accused of scientific mistakes. The study concludes that retractions were mostly due to the authors misconduct. Despite the increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small, indicating that retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing and incipient, issue within Malaysian papers, which publishers as well as editors may have consistently and sufficiently addressed.
KeywordsJournal retractions Publication ethics and integrity Scientific misconduct Scientific mistakes Scholarly communication
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- Abrizah, A., Badawi, F., Zoohorian-Fooladi, N., Nicholas, D., Jamali, H., & Norliya, A. K. (2015). Trust and authority in the periphery of world scholarly communication: A Malaysian focus group study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 20(2), 67–83.Google Scholar
- Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., Schultz, T. R., & Scoville, C. (1998). Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(4), 437–443.Google Scholar
- COPE. (2008). Code of Conduct. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf.
- Damineni, R. S., Sardiwal, K. K., Waghle, S. R., & Dakshyani, M. B. (2015). A comprehensive comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 from the scholarly literature. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.151968.Google Scholar
- Retraction (2017). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction.
- van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and Unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, H. (1977). Deviant behaviour and social control in science. In E. Sagarin (Ed.), Deviance and Social Change (pp. 87–138). SAGE: Beverly Hills.Google Scholar