A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.

Results

We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.

Conclusions

Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

Related collections

Most cited references 46

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Purification and ex vivo expansion of postnatal human marrow mesodermal progenitor cells.

D Aguiar, T Lund, T. Lund … (2001)

It is here reported that mesenchymal stem cells known to give rise to limb-bud mesoderm can, at the single-cell level, also differentiate into cells of visceral mesoderm and can be expanded extensively by means of clinically applicable methods. These cells were named mesodermal progenitor cells (MPCs). MPCs were selected by depleting bone marrow mononuclear cells from more than 30 healthy human donors of CD45(+)/glycophorin-A (GlyA)(+) cells. Cells were cultured on fibronectin with epidermal growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor BB and 2% or less fetal calf serum. It was found that 1/5 x 10(3) CD45(-)GlyA(-) cells, or 1/10(6) bone marrow mononuclear cells, gave rise to clusters of small adherent cells. Cell-doubling time was 48 to 72 hours, and cells have been expanded in culture for more than 60 cell doublings. MPCs are CD34(-), CD44(low), CD45(-), CD117 (cKit)(-), class I-HLA(-), and HLA-DR(-). MPCs differentiated into cells of limb-bud mesoderm (osteoblasts, chondrocytes, adipocytes, stroma cells, and skeletal myoblasts) as well as visceral mesoderm (endothelial cells). Retroviral marking was used to definitively prove that single MPCs can differentiate into cells of limb bud and visceral mesoderm. Thus, MPCs that proliferate without obvious senescence under clinically applicable conditions and differentiate at the single-cell level not only into mesenchymal cells but also cells of visceral mesoderm may be an ideal source of stem cells for treatment of genetic or degenerative disorders affecting cells of mesodermal origin.

0 comments Cited 134 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

Ferric C. Fang, Arturo Casadevall, R P Morrison (2011)

Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855-3859 Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.

0 comments Cited 117 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

R Steen (2011)

Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing. The reasons for retracting 742 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Reasons for retraction were initially dichotomised as fraud or error and then analysed to determine specific reasons for retraction. Error was more common than fraud (73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% retracted for fraud). Eight reasons for retraction were identified; the most common reason was scientific mistake in 234 papers (31.5%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were retracted for ambiguous reasons. Fabrication (including data plagiarism) was more common than text plagiarism. Total papers retracted per year have increased sharply over the decade (r=0.96; p<0.001), as have retractions specifically for fraud (r=0.89; p<0.001). Journals now reach farther back in time to retract, both for fraud (r=0.87; p<0.001) and for scientific mistakes (r=0.95; p<0.001). Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader; 31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as retracted in any way. Levels of misconduct appear to be higher than in the past. This may reflect either a real increase in the incidence of fraud or a greater effort on the part of journals to police the literature. However, research bias is rarely cited as a reason for retraction.

0 comments Cited 108 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Erik von Elm: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Journal ID (pmc): plosone

Title: PLoS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date Collection: 2012

Publication date (Electronic): 24 October 2012

Volume: 7

Issue: 10

Electronic Location Identifier: e44118

Affiliations

[1 ]Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China

[2 ]Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America

IUMSP, University Hospital Lausanne, Switzerland

Author notes

* E-mail: mhz.gis@ 123456gmail.com

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Conceived and designed the experiments: MLG MZ. Performed the experiments: MLG. Analyzed the data: MLG MZ. Wrote the paper: MLG MZ.

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-11-25855

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118

PMC ID: 3480361

PubMed ID: 23115617

SO-VID: 07185b9e-1a0a-4703-9070-a5ecc41495de

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 27 December 2011

Date accepted : 30 July 2012

Page count

Pages: 15

Funding

The authors wish to acknowledge Wenzhou Medical College and Wenzhou City (No. 89207011, 20082780125) and Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province (No. 2008C03009) China for partial financial support for this project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

PLOS Climate

Most cited references 46

Purification and ex vivo expansion of postnatal human marrow mesodermal progenitor cells.

Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 211

Cited by 103

Most referenced authors 428