Abstract
BackgroundRetraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines.MethodsAll retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type “retraction of publication”. The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article.ResultsOverall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction.ConclusionA standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.
Highlights
Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications
Following the Joachim Boldt case with 88 retractions [8] and the Scott Reuben case with 21 falsified papers [9], the subject of retraction was studied in 4 dedicated publications in 2011 [5,10,11,12]
The most frequent reasons for retraction in 2008 were mistakes (28%), followed by plagiarism (20%) and fraud (14%), and journals insufficiently followed the retraction good practices formalized by the 2009 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
Summary
Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. It is difficult for reviewers to detect errors or suspected fraud [3] Their task is to improve the paper. In cases of scientific misconduct or mistakes, it is necessary that readers are informed, Following the Joachim Boldt case with 88 retractions [8] and the Scott Reuben case with 21 falsified papers [9], the subject of retraction was studied in 4 dedicated publications in 2011 [5,10,11,12]. A similar tenfold increase was found when focusing on Medline only (1999–2009), retraction remains a rare event since it only represents 0.02% of publications [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
