Reasons for retraction of clinical research articles in PubMed indexed medical journals from 2012 to 2022.

Miteshkumar Maurya, Renuka Munshi
{"title":"Reasons for retraction of clinical research articles in PubMed indexed medical journals from 2012 to 2022.","authors":"Miteshkumar Maurya, Renuka Munshi","doi":"10.20529/IJME.2024.067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misconduct in the publication of research articles is a serious concern for the scientific community. This study was conducted with the objective to assess various reasons for retraction of clinical research articles published in PubMed indexed journals from all over the world since 2012 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was performed on the PubMed database for retracted research articles using filters for \"retracted publication\". A total of 314 eligible research articles were assessed for studying basic details. The study outcome measures were to evaluate the reasons for the retraction and authors' and journal editors' responses to retractions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the original research articles retracted, 150/242 (61.98%) were clinical trial publications. Of the total 314 retracted research articles, the most retractions were in 2014 (47, 14.96%) and 2013 (40, 12.73%) while the fewest retractions were in 2012 (3, 0.95%) and 2022 (9, 2.86%). The most common reasons for retraction were data errors or data analysis errors (120/314, 38.21%) followed by plagiarism (37/314, 11.8%), duplicate publication (35/314, 11.1%), ethical concerns (23/314, 7.3%) and methodological flaws (22/314, 7%). These concerns were raised mainly by the editor or editor-in-chief (228/314, 72.61%), followed by authors (29/314, 9.23%). Out of 228 editorial concerns on publications, authors of only 91/228 (39.91%) agreed and 17/228 (7.45%) completely disagreed with the editorial decision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Authors need to be more careful about data analysis errors, fabricated or falsified data, and plagiarism while submitting their research papers. On the part of editors, detecting misconduct at the submission and peer review stages will help lower the retraction rate and avoid citation of such articles by other authors.</p>","PeriodicalId":517372,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of medical ethics","volume":"IX 4","pages":"296-300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of medical ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Misconduct in the publication of research articles is a serious concern for the scientific community. This study was conducted with the objective to assess various reasons for retraction of clinical research articles published in PubMed indexed journals from all over the world since 2012 to 2022.

Methods: A search was performed on the PubMed database for retracted research articles using filters for "retracted publication". A total of 314 eligible research articles were assessed for studying basic details. The study outcome measures were to evaluate the reasons for the retraction and authors' and journal editors' responses to retractions.

Results: Of the original research articles retracted, 150/242 (61.98%) were clinical trial publications. Of the total 314 retracted research articles, the most retractions were in 2014 (47, 14.96%) and 2013 (40, 12.73%) while the fewest retractions were in 2012 (3, 0.95%) and 2022 (9, 2.86%). The most common reasons for retraction were data errors or data analysis errors (120/314, 38.21%) followed by plagiarism (37/314, 11.8%), duplicate publication (35/314, 11.1%), ethical concerns (23/314, 7.3%) and methodological flaws (22/314, 7%). These concerns were raised mainly by the editor or editor-in-chief (228/314, 72.61%), followed by authors (29/314, 9.23%). Out of 228 editorial concerns on publications, authors of only 91/228 (39.91%) agreed and 17/228 (7.45%) completely disagreed with the editorial decision.

Conclusion: Authors need to be more careful about data analysis errors, fabricated or falsified data, and plagiarism while submitting their research papers. On the part of editors, detecting misconduct at the submission and peer review stages will help lower the retraction rate and avoid citation of such articles by other authors.

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
2012 - 2022年PubMed索引医学期刊临床研究论文撤稿原因分析。
背景:科研论文发表中的不当行为是科学界严重关注的问题。本研究的目的是评估2012年至2022年在世界各地PubMed索引期刊上发表的临床研究文章被撤回的各种原因。方法:在PubMed数据库中使用“撤回出版物”过滤器对撤回的研究文章进行搜索。共有314篇符合条件的研究文章被评估以研究基本细节。研究结果测量是评估撤稿的原因以及作者和期刊编辑对撤稿的反应。结果:在撤回的原始研究论文中,150/242篇(61.98%)为临床试验论文。在314篇撤稿论文中,撤稿最多的年份是2014年(47篇,14.96%)和2013年(40篇,12.73%),撤稿最少的年份是2012年(3篇,0.95%)和2022年(9篇,2.86%)。最常见的撤稿原因是数据错误或数据分析错误(120/314,38.21%),其次是抄袭(37/314,11.8%)、重复发表(35/314,11.1%)、伦理问题(23/314,7.3%)和方法学缺陷(22/314,7%)。这些问题主要由编辑或主编提出(228/314,72.61%),其次是作者(29/314,9.23%)。在228个编辑对出版物的关注中,只有91/228(39.91%)的作者同意,17/228(7.45%)的作者完全不同意编辑的决定。结论:作者在提交研究论文时需要更加小心数据分析错误、伪造或伪造数据以及抄袭。在编辑方面,在投稿和同行评审阶段发现不当行为将有助于降低撤稿率,避免此类文章被其他作者引用。
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
A typology framework for unethical medical practices under public health insurance schemes in India: Analysis of evidence over the past 12 years. Advance care planning and the ethical obligation of death literacy as a public health initiative in India. Some personal reflections on prison medical care. The healing power of the doctor-patient relationship. A quasi-experimental study of trigger films for teaching the doctor-patient relationship.
×
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