This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001–2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The maximum time-lag (about 3000 days) occurred for papers retracted due to duplicate publications; the minimum time-lag (fewer than 100 days) was for papers retracted due to “unspecified cause” (most of these were conference papers). As many as 48 (14%) of the retracted papers were published in two medical journals: Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). From the institutional point of view, Islamic Azad University was the inglorious leader, contributing to over one-half (53.1%) of retracted papers. Among the 343 retraction notices, 64 papers pertained to international collaborations with researchers from mainly Asian and European countries; Malaysia having the most retractions (22 papers). Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
As also noticed by Lei and Zhang (2018), for China, for which = 0.84.
Note that "Islamic Azad University" has many branches in different cities, like the Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, the Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, the Islamic Azad University of Tabriz, etc. Scopus, however, groups all of them into one institution, the Islamic Azad University, which makes it a large university.
Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5–6), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02017100
Aspura, M. Y. I., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115(3), 1315–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2720-z
Ausloos, M., Nedic, O., & Dekanski, A. (2016). Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 456, 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.03.032
Bornmann, L., & Mungra, P. (2011). Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing, 37(2), 41–43.
Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I. S., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2016). Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: Incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1063–1072.
Budd, J. M., Sievert, M. E., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction - Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
Callaway E. (2016). Publisher pulls 58 articles by Iranian scientists over authorship manipulation. Nature. (Accessed 01/15/2019.) Available at: https://www.nature.com/news/publisher-pulls-58-articles-by-iranian-scientists-over-authorship-manipulation-1.20916.
Campos-Varela, I., & Ruano-Raviña, A. (2019). Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta Sanitaria, 33, 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
Chauvin, A., De Villelongue, C., Pateron, D., & Yordanov, Y. (2019). A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine. European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 26(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/mej.0000000000000491
Dakhesh, S., & Hamidi, A. (2020). Scientific misconduct and Iranian scientists. Gaceta Sanitaria, 33, 598–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.02.003
Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of Medical Genetics, 56, 734–740. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137
De Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024051
Elango, B., Kozak, M., & Rajendran, P. (2019). Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
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 of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Ghorbi, A. (2019). Examine the aspects of research retraction and provide guidelines for identifying unreliable publications. (Master's thesis), University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. https:// thesis2.ut.ac.ir/thesis/UTCatalog/UTThesis/Forms/ThesisBrief.aspx?thesisID=d26eb04f-7aa6–4217–833b-efb057f16db8
Ghorbi, A., & Fahimifar, S. (2020). Aspects and collaboration patterns of retracted papers as evidence of research misconduct in iran and foreign countries. Journal of Scientometrics, 6(11), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4392.1287
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A Comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
Hayati, Z., & Didegah, F. (2010). International scientific collaboration among Iranian researchers during 1998–2007. Library Hi Tech, 28(3), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831011076675
Kozak, M. (2008). Correlation coefficient and the fallacy of statistical hypothesis testing. Current Science, 95(9), 1121–1122.
Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: an analysis of WoS retractions by chinese researchers (1997–2016). Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409–1420.
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, 29(8), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
Rubbo, P., Helmann, C. L., dos Santos, C. B., & Pilatti, L. A. (2019). Retractions in the engineering field: a study on the web of science database. Ethics and Behavior, 29(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1390667
Samp, J. C., Schumock, G. T., & Pickard, A. S. (2012). Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy, 32(7), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01100.x
Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84(2), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0100-4
Stavale, R., Ferreira, G. I., Galvão, J. A. M., Zicker, F., Novaes, M. R. C. G., de Oliveira, C. M., & Guilhem, D. (2019). Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS ONE, 14(4), e0214272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214272
Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8, e68397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397
Steen, R. G. (2012). Retractions in the medical literature: How can patients be protected from risk? Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 228–232.
Stewart, W. W., & Feder, N. (1987). The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature, 325, 207–214.
Tang, L., Hu, G., Sui, Y., Yang, Y., & Cao, C. (2020). Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration? Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1681–1708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282
Wager, E. (2015). Why are retractions so difficult? Science Editing, 2(1), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.34
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50(6), 532–535. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964
Zhang, C., Ding, K., & Liu, Z. (2019). Informetric Analysis on the International Retracted Publication Based on the Web of Science Database. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 376, 576–585. https://doi.org/10.2991/sschd-19.2019.100
References to retracted papers
Hwang, W. S., Roh, S. I., Lee, B. C., Kang, S. K., Kwon, D. K., Kim, S., et al. (2005). Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 308(5729), 1777–1783. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112286
Hwang, W. S., Ryu, Y. J., Park, J. H., Park, E. S., Lee, E. G., Koo, J. M., Jeon, H. Y., Lee, B. C., Kang, S. K., Kim, S. J., & Ahn, C. (2004). Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science, 303(5664), 1669–1674.
LaCour, M. J., & Green, D. P. (2014). When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality. Science, 346(6215), 1366–1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256151
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0
As discussed in the Results section, in 2016, Tumor Biology and Diagnostic Pathology retracted many Iranian papers. The figure below shows the number of Iranian papers these two journals published in 2004–2020 (Fig. 6).
About this article
Cite this article
Ghorbi, A., Fazeli-Varzaneh, M., Ghaderi-Azad, E. et al. Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations. Scientometrics 126, 7351–7371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04104-9
- Retraction reasons
- Fake peer review
- Unethical behavior