Abstract
This systematic review examines temporal trends of retractions in cardiology literature and assesses their effect.
Highlights
On certain occasions, the veracity of a published scientific report comes into question, resulting in its voluntary or involuntary retraction
1636 authors (85%) who contributed to a retracted cardiology article were authors with only a single retraction
Time to retraction was dependent on original publication date (Figure), with an overall downward trend indicating that, on average, recently published articles were retracted in a shorter time span than older articles (Mann-Kendall: 7; S = −15; z = −2.1; P = .04 for trend)
Summary
The veracity of a published scientific report comes into question, resulting in its voluntary or involuntary retraction. This is a growing problem in modern medicine because the retraction rate of scientific articles has gradually but significantly risen over time.[1,2] even postretraction, many articles continue to be cited, and nearly one-third of retracted articles are not labeled as retracted.[1] This could have negative downstream ramifications, including wasted scientific resources because many articles whose findings are intricately tied to the retracted literature remain published with amplification of potentially false conclusions. This systematic review examines temporal trends of retractions in the cardiology literature and assesses their impact
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.