Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 855–868 | Cite as

Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals

  • Tao Wang
  • Qin-Rui Xing
  • Hui Wang
  • Wei ChenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

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 Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin.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.

Keywords

Retracted publications Open access journals Plagiarism Duplicate publication 

Notes

Funding

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Arns, M. (2014). Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature, 515(7528), 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreiro, E. (2013). Open access: is the scientific quality of biomedical publications threatened? Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition), 49(12), 505–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björk, B. C. (2015). Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. Chen, W., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature withauthors from mainland China. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2565-x.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Dadkhah, M., Kahani, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). A method for improving the integrity of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9.Google Scholar
  11. 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/.
  12. Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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/.
  16. 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
  17. Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7.Google Scholar
  19. Leopold, S. S. (2016). Editorial: CORR’s new peer-reviewer tool—Useful for more than peer reviews. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474(11), 2321–2322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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/.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, 719.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-61-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh, H. P., Mahendra, A., Yadav, B., Singh, H., Arora, N., & Arora, M. (2014). A comprehensive analysis of articles retracted between 2004 and 2013 from biomedical literature—A call for reforms. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine, 4(3), 136–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suber, P. (2007). Will open access undermine peer review? The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue 113; 2009.Google Scholar
  36. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 64(4), 201–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., & Spezi, V. (2016). Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0165359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watson, R. (2016). PubPeer: Never heard of it? You have now. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(1), 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency and Intensive Care UnitHainan Branch of Chinese PLA General HospitalSanyaChina

Personalised recommendations