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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |