Vexatious and euphemistic affairs in retractions of scientific publications: A pilot study

Abstract

BackgroundAn increasing number of retractions have been published in the recent past which may be conforming to the large number publications being added on a daily basis. Concerns have been flagged time and again regarding comprehensiveness and utility of retraction notices. MethodsRetraction notices published in PubMed in Jan 23 were analyzed for journal, publisher, article, country affiliation of authors, month of publication, who raised concern, main and additional reason for retraction, completeness of retraction notice, editors/authors requesting for retraction, agreement between authors and editors, and the number of citations received. ResultsA total of 295 retraction notices published in PubMed in Jan 2023 by 110 journals (which included 24 publishers and 9 standalone journals) were analyzed. Sixty-four percent of journals published single retraction notice. The highest number of retractions by a single journal was 70. Only 31% of retraction notices gave complete details. Editors requested for retraction in 88% cases. Eighty-four percent of the articles received at least one citation. In 71% of cases, it is not known who raised the concern. Reasons for retraction were compromised peer review (37%), plagiarism (20%), image manipulation (13%), data reliability (8%), authorship dispute (6%), methodology issues (4%), and so on. Twenty-seven percent of cases had more than one reason. Plagiarism of figures constituted 84% of total plagiarism cases. Fifty-eight of 59 plagiarism cases were described indirectly despite clear evidence. Authors and editors agreed for retraction in 25% of cases, and no information was available in 36% cases. ConclusionA substantial number of retraction notices are incomplete, vague, and euphemistic. Plagiarism of figures/images is an emerging threat.