Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review.

Minerva medica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-02 DOI:10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1
Yashendra Sethi, Oroshay Kaiwan, Giacomo Frati, Mariangela Peruzzi, Mattia Galli, Mario Gaudino, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai
{"title":"Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review.","authors":"Yashendra Sethi, Oroshay Kaiwan, Giacomo Frati, Mariangela Peruzzi, Mattia Galli, Mario Gaudino, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The escalating trend of academic article retractions over the last decades raises concerns about scientific integrity, but heterogeneity in retractions and reasons for them pose a major challenge. We aimed to comprehensively overview systematic reviews focusing on retractions in the biomedical literature.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>We abstracted salient features and bibliometric details from shortlisted articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for validity appraisal.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 11 reviews were included, published between 2016 and 2023, and reporting on a total of 1851 retracted studies. Several major reasons for retractions were identified, spanning both misconduct (e.g., falsification, duplication, plagiarism) and non-misconduct issues (e.g., unreliable data, publishing problems). Correlates include author-related factors (number of authors, nationality) and journal-related factors (impact factor), with repeat offenders contributing significantly. Impacts of retractions is profound, affecting scholarly credibility, public trust, and resource utilization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In order to prevent retractions and amend their adverse effects, rigorous and transparent reporting standards, enhanced training in research ethics, strengthened peer review processes, and the establishment of collaborative and integrated research integrity offices are proposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94143,"journal":{"name":"Minerva medica","volume":" ","pages":"581-588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The escalating trend of academic article retractions over the last decades raises concerns about scientific integrity, but heterogeneity in retractions and reasons for them pose a major challenge. We aimed to comprehensively overview systematic reviews focusing on retractions in the biomedical literature.

Evidence acquisition: We abstracted salient features and bibliometric details from shortlisted articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for validity appraisal.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 11 reviews were included, published between 2016 and 2023, and reporting on a total of 1851 retracted studies. Several major reasons for retractions were identified, spanning both misconduct (e.g., falsification, duplication, plagiarism) and non-misconduct issues (e.g., unreliable data, publishing problems). Correlates include author-related factors (number of authors, nationality) and journal-related factors (impact factor), with repeat offenders contributing significantly. Impacts of retractions is profound, affecting scholarly credibility, public trust, and resource utilization.

Conclusions: In order to prevent retractions and amend their adverse effects, rigorous and transparent reporting standards, enhanced training in research ethics, strengthened peer review processes, and the establishment of collaborative and integrated research integrity offices are proposed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索医学界学术撤稿的现状:总括性综合评述。
导言:过去几十年来,学术论文撤稿呈上升趋势,这引起了人们对科学诚信的关注,但撤稿的异质性及其原因构成了一项重大挑战。我们旨在全面综述以生物医学文献中撤稿事件为重点的系统性综述:我们摘录了入围文章的显著特征和文献计量学细节。采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)的系统综述和研究综述核对表进行有效性评估:共纳入了 2016 年至 2023 年间发表的 11 篇综述,共报告了 1851 项撤回研究。撤稿的几个主要原因包括不当行为(如造假、重复、剽窃)和非不当行为(如数据不可靠、出版问题)。相关因素包括与作者有关的因素(作者人数、国籍)和与期刊有关的因素(影响因子),其中惯犯的影响最大。撤稿的影响是深远的,会影响学术可信度、公众信任度和资源利用率:为了防止撤稿并改变其不良影响,建议制定严格透明的报告标准,加强研究伦理培训,强化同行评审程序,并建立协作性综合研究诚信办公室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of dual-sufficiency modified nursing care on treatment compliance and adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients with coronary heart disease after interventional surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of different vertebroplasties in the treatment of osteoporotic spinal fractures in the elderly. Detection method of inflammatory cells in cytopathological images of chronic rhinosinusitis. BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose did not influence the activity of the exudative form of age-related macular degeneration during anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Identification of biomarkers and construction of a clinical-radiomics model for predicting functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1