[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin.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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arns, M. (2014). Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature, 515(7528), 467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro, E. (2013). Open access: is the scientific quality of biomedical publications threatened? Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition), 49(12), 505–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björk, B. C. (2015). Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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/.

  • Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P. (2007). Will open access undermine peer review? The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue 113; 2009.

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 64(4), 201–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (2016). PubPeer: Never heard of it? You have now. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by the Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province (Grant No. 20168359).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tao Wang and Qin-Rui Xing contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency and Intensive Care Unit, Hainan Branch of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Sanya, 572013, Hainan, China

    Tao Wang, Qin-Rui Xing, Hui Wang & Wei Chen

Authors
  1. Tao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qin-Rui Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, T., Xing, QR., Wang, H. et al. Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 855–868 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation