An increasing problem throughout the world, plagiarism and related dishonest behaviors have been affecting Indian science for quite some time. To curb this problem, the Indian government has initiated a number of measures, such as providing plagiarism detecting software to all the universities for free. Still, however, many unfair or incorrect papers are published. For some time, publishers have used an efficient tool to deal with such situations: retractions. A published paper that is later discovered to not deserve publication—which can be for a number of reasons—can be withdrawn (and often removed from the online contents of the journal) by the publisher. This study aims (1) to identify retracted publications authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated to Indian institutions and (2) to analyze the reasons for the retractions. To meet these aims, we searched the SCOPUS database to identify retraction notices for articles authored or coauthored by Indian authors. The first retraction notice was issued back in 1996, an exceptionally early retraction, as the next one was published in 2005. Thus, we analyzed 239 retractions (195 from journals and 44 from conference proceedings) published between 2005 and 3 August 2018 (but most were published after 2010), in terms of the following qualitative retraction-wise parameters: the main reason for retraction, authorship, a collaboration level, collaborating countries, sources of retraction (a journal or conference proceedings), and funding sources of the research. We also detected journals with high retraction frequencies. Mainly two phrases—“Retraction notice to” and “Retracted Article”—were used to retract publications. The most frequent reason for retractions was plagiarism.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Arora, S. C., & Kalucha, G. (2008). Retraction of “quasihyponormal toeplitz operators”. Journal of Operator Theory, 60(2), 445.
Aspura, M. Y. I., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115(3), 1315–1328.
Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2018). World map of scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1653–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771–1783.
Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: A systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), 5.
Callaway, E. (2016). Publisher pulls 58 articles by Iranian scientists over authorship manipulation. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20916.
Chaddah, P. (2014). Not all plagiarism requires a retraction. Nature News, 511(7508), 127.
Chaddah, P., & Lakhotia, S. C. (2018). A policy statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output in India” by the Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi). Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 84(2), 319–329.
Chauhan, S. K. (2018). Research on plagiarism in India during 2002–2016: A bibliometric analysis. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38(2), 69–74.
Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104–107.
Elango, B., & Ho, Y. S. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers from India in Science Citation Index Expanded. Current Science, 112(8), 1653–1658.
Elango, B., & Ho, Y. S. (2018). Top-cited articles in the field of tribology: A bibliometric analysis. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 12(2), 289–307.
Elango, B., Rajendran, P., & Bornmann, L. (2013). Global nanotribology research output (1996–2010): A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e81094.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.
He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555–561.
Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65(6), 814–845.
Ho, Y. S. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles in materials science. Current Science, 107(9), 1565–1572.
Huh, S., Kim, S. Y., & Cho, H. M. (2016). Characteristics of retractions from Korean medical journals in the KoreaMed database: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163588.
Ison, D. C. (2018). An empirical analysis of differences in plagiarism among world cultures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(4), 291–304.
Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409–1420.
Li, G., et al. (2018). Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 11, 39–47.
Liu, X., & Chen, X. (2018). Journal retractions: Some unique features of research misconduct in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(3), 305–319.
Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). What studies of retractions tell us. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 151–154.
Misra, D. P., Ravindran, V., Wakhlu, A., Sharma, A., Agarwal, V., & Negi, V. S. (2017). Plagiarism: A viewpoint from India. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(11), 1734–1735.
Moradi, S., & Janavi, E. (2018). A scientometrics study of Iranian retracted papers. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 33(4), 1805–1824.
Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10), 1747–1759.
Nikumbh, D. B. (2016). Research vs plagiarism in medical science (cytohistopathology). Archives of Cytology and Histopathology Research, 1(1), 1–3.
Nogueira, T. E., Gonçalves, A. S., Leles, C. R., Batista, A. C., & Costa, L. R. (2017). A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 253.
Noorden, R. V. (2011). The reasons for retractions. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/10/the_reasons_for_retraction.html. Accessed August 21, 2018.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed December 19, 2019.
Rajendran, P., Elango, B., & Manickaraj, J. (2014). Publication trends and citation impact of tribology research in India: A scientometric study. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 2(1), 22–34.
Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: Prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114(2), 719–734.
Sarkar, D. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York: Springer.
Shan, J. (2017). Journal publisher removes Chinese articles. Global Times, April 21, 2017. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1043584.shtml.
Sharma, O. P. (2015). Ethics in science. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 55(3), 341–344.
Sharma, G. L. (2016). Academic plagiarism: an Indian scenario. Paripex – Indian Journal of Research, 5(4), 23–24.
Singh, N., Handa, T. S., Kumar, D., & Singh, G. (2016). Mapping of breast cancer research in India: A bibliometric analysis. Current Science, 110(7), 1178–1183.
Stigbrand, T. (2017). Retraction note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Tumor Biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.
Tripathi, M., Dwivedi, G., Sonkar, S. K., & Kumar, S. (2018). Analysing retraction notices of scholarly journals: A study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38(5), 305–311.
Wang, T., Xing, Q.R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6.
We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the first version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Elango, B., Kozak, M. & Rajendran, P. Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics 119, 1081–1094 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y