Cargando…

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND: Flawed or misleading articles may be retracted because of either honest scientific errors or scientific misconduct. This study explored the characteristics of retractions in medical journals published in Korea through the KoreaMed database. METHODS: We retrieved retraction articles index...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huh, Sun, Kim, Soo Young, Cho, Hye-Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27706245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163588
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Flawed or misleading articles may be retracted because of either honest scientific errors or scientific misconduct. This study explored the characteristics of retractions in medical journals published in Korea through the KoreaMed database. METHODS: We retrieved retraction articles indexed in the KoreaMed database from January 1990 to January 2016. Three authors each reviewed the details of the retractions including the reason for retraction, adherence to retraction guidelines, and appropriateness of retraction. Points of disagreement were reconciled by discussion among the three. RESULTS: Out of 217,839 articles in KoreaMed published from 1990 to January 2016, the publication type of 111 articles was retraction (0.051%). Of the 111 articles (addressing the retraction of 114 papers), 58.8% were issued by the authors, 17.5% were jointly issued (author, editor, and publisher), 15.8% came from editors, and 4.4% were dispatched by institutions; in 5.3% of the instances, the issuer was unstated. The reasons for retraction included duplicate publication (57.0%), plagiarism (8.8%), scientific error (4.4%), author dispute (3.5%), and other (5.3%); the reasons were unstated or unclear in 20.2%. The degree of adherence to COPE’s retraction guidelines varied (79.8%–100%), and some retractions were inappropriate by COPE standards. These were categorized as follows: retraction of the first published article in the case of duplicate publication (69.2%), authorship dispute (15.4%), errata (7.7%), and other (7.7%). CONCLUSION: The major reason for retraction in Korean medical journals is duplicate publication. Some retractions resulted from overreaction by the editors. Therefore, editors of Korean medical journals should take careful note of the COPE retraction guidelines and should undergo training on appropriate retraction practices.