Cargando…

A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms

Science is a dynamic subject and it was never free of misconduct or bad research. Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and misdeeds. So, we aimed to assess various factors associated with retraction of scientific articles from 2004 to 2013. Data were retrieved from P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Harkanwal Preet, Mahendra, Ashish, Yadav, Bhupender, Singh, Harpreet, Arora, Nitin, Arora, Monika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4142449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25161916
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2225-4110.136264
_version_ 1782331776944832512
author Singh, Harkanwal Preet
Mahendra, Ashish
Yadav, Bhupender
Singh, Harpreet
Arora, Nitin
Arora, Monika
author_facet Singh, Harkanwal Preet
Mahendra, Ashish
Yadav, Bhupender
Singh, Harpreet
Arora, Nitin
Arora, Monika
author_sort Singh, Harkanwal Preet
collection PubMed
description Science is a dynamic subject and it was never free of misconduct or bad research. Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and misdeeds. So, we aimed to assess various factors associated with retraction of scientific articles from 2004 to 2013. Data were retrieved from PubMed and Medline using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in April 2014 to detect articles retracted from 2004 to 2013. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test and Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results showed that a total of 2343 articles were retracted between 2004 and 2013, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. Time interval between submission and retraction of article has reduced in recent times. Impact factor and retraction do not have any significant correlation. We conclude that although retraction of articles is a rare event, its constant rise in scientific literature is quite worrisome. It is still unclear whether misconduct/mistakes in articles are increasing hastily or the articles are retracted at a rapid rate in recent times. So, it should be considered as an urgent issue and it is the responsibility of journal editors to track misconduct by following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and making an effective strategy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4142449
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41424492014-08-26 A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms Singh, Harkanwal Preet Mahendra, Ashish Yadav, Bhupender Singh, Harpreet Arora, Nitin Arora, Monika J Tradit Complement Med Perspective Science is a dynamic subject and it was never free of misconduct or bad research. Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and misdeeds. So, we aimed to assess various factors associated with retraction of scientific articles from 2004 to 2013. Data were retrieved from PubMed and Medline using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in April 2014 to detect articles retracted from 2004 to 2013. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test and Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results showed that a total of 2343 articles were retracted between 2004 and 2013, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. Time interval between submission and retraction of article has reduced in recent times. Impact factor and retraction do not have any significant correlation. We conclude that although retraction of articles is a rare event, its constant rise in scientific literature is quite worrisome. It is still unclear whether misconduct/mistakes in articles are increasing hastily or the articles are retracted at a rapid rate in recent times. So, it should be considered as an urgent issue and it is the responsibility of journal editors to track misconduct by following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and making an effective strategy. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4142449/ /pubmed/25161916 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2225-4110.136264 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Perspective
Singh, Harkanwal Preet
Mahendra, Ashish
Yadav, Bhupender
Singh, Harpreet
Arora, Nitin
Arora, Monika
A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title_full A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title_fullStr A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title_full_unstemmed A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title_short A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms
title_sort comprehensive analysis of articles retracted between 2004 and 2013 from biomedical literature – a call for reforms
topic Perspective
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4142449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25161916
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2225-4110.136264
work_keys_str_mv AT singhharkanwalpreet acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT mahendraashish acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT yadavbhupender acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT singhharpreet acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT aroranitin acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT aroramonika acomprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT singhharkanwalpreet comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT mahendraashish comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT yadavbhupender comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT singhharpreet comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT aroranitin comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms
AT aroramonika comprehensiveanalysisofarticlesretractedbetween2004and2013frombiomedicalliteratureacallforreforms