Retraction Watch Research Articles

Integrity and accountability in academic publishing: trends and implications of paper retractions and journal delistings

Abstract In the context of academic publishing, ‘retraction’ refers to the withdrawal of a published article from the scientific record due to issues such as significant errors, plagiarism, fraudulent data, or unethical research practices. Retractions play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks retractions of scientific papers, lists more than 48,000 retractions in its database, with increasing trend over time (from 450 reported retractions in 2008 to a staggering 7327 retractions in 2023). The extent to which this indicates a heightened vigilance in identifying problematic research or an increased tendency in committing research misconduct or errors is unclear. Retractions can have lasting consequences beyond the retracted paper itself for authors, editors, publishers and the scientific community at large. However, not all retractions are the same, and self-reporting errors might come with minimal effects, suggesting a recognition of accountability and corrective actions. Delisting of a journal from a scientific database such as Scopus and Web of Science refers to the removal of the journal from the database’s index. This can happen for various reasons, including quality concerns and ethical issues. Although this phenomenon is not necessarily correlated with the quality, integrity, or reliability of individual papers published in the delisted journal, it might still have significant impacts on the work and careers of researchers. For instance, articles in delisted journals might suffer from decreased visibility or authors might not be able to use it for promotions. The curated list of sources from Scopus is publicly available and lists around 800 discountinued sources due to quality concerns, while Web of Science made the news in 2023 for the delisting of several journals for editorial reasons, including the MDPI’s giant, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

A systematic review of ENT retractions.

Retraction is the removal of published material due to flaws in research that cannot be corrected. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of all retracted literature in Ear Nose and Throat to understand the characteristics of retraction and the citations of retracted literature. The Retraction Watch, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched to yield relevant retractions. Two independent authors performed abstract and full-text screening. Non-relevant texts, articles in non-English languages, and articles that were neither published (protocols) or retracted (expression of concern) were excluded. We found 225 retractions in Ear Nose and Throat literature from 1992 to 2023. The number of retractions increased with time, and the average time-to-retraction was 1year (range 0-29). Most articles were retracted due to misconduct (72%). In total, 191/225 of retractions were signposted with a retraction notice; 90.6% of notices were linked to the original manuscript; 96.9% specified the reason for retraction and 100% were freely accessible. Publications were cited more after retraction (median 2, range 0-215 vs median 0, range 0-78, Z-1.78, p = 0.075), however this was not significant, and appeared to improve with a shorter retraction time (RS 0.67, p < 0.001). Retractions, although rare, are increasing across all scientific disciplines. Our data suggests that retractions are both efficiently and transparently publicised in the Ear Nose and Throat Literature. Investigators should be veracious when conducting their own research and regularly appraise manuscripts to ensure that misinformation is not perpetuated, remaining aware that retracted articles continue to be cited.

Unearthing the misconduct and inaccuracies in social science research: a trend analysis of retracted articles based on retraction watch database

Purpose The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyze the research article retractions in social sciences over the past decade (2014–2023). Design/methodology/approach The study used scientometric methods to evaluate the prevalence, patterns and factors contributing to social sciences article retractions. Bibliographic data of retracted articles were collected from the Retraction Watch Database under an agreement signed with the database. Further, citations of the retracted articles were collected from Scopus and Google Scholar. The analysis encompasses performance assessment and citation-based analysis to reveal the trend of retraction and scrutinize the impact of retracted articles. Findings Over the past decade, article retractions have shown dynamic trends, with notable fluctuations in recent years. Further, investigating the time taken for article retraction reveals the urgency of addressing issues identified soon after publication. Scientific misconduct and publication-related concerns emerge as primary factors leading to retractions. Countries such as Russia, the USA, China and publishers such as Elsevier and Taylor and Francis led in the retractions of social science articles. A significant portion of retracted works had garnered academic attention prior to retraction and even after retraction. Originality/value This study can contribute to a better understanding among scholars and stakeholders of the trends and reasons for retractions of research articles in the social sciences.

Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science

Retractions serve a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and accuracy of scientific literature. There has been growing interest in understanding the patterns behind retractions. This bibliometric study analyzed retracted articles published between 2003 and 2022, indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection database. A total of 8466 retracted articles were identified, revealing an overall increase up to 2019, followed by a decline. A total of 109 countries contributed to the retracted articles, with China and the United States having the highest absolute numbers. In addition, the articles were published in 2347 different journals, with Tumor Biology recording the largest number of retracted articles. The top 10 most cited retracted articles indicated that data and image integrity issues were the main reasons for retraction. The primary reasons for retractions, identified by linking the retracted articles to the Retraction Watch Database, were data and results issues followed by plagiarism and duplication. In conclusion, the present bibliometric study offered an overview of the status of retracted articles indexed by the Web of Science Core Collection over the past two decades. These findings provide insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised and serve as a guide to foster a responsible research environment.

Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology

The retraction of publications is a crucial aspect of scientific integrity; it aims to correct the literature and alert scholars and the general public by identifying and labelling articles that contain erroneous data, unreliable findings, or flawed conclusions. Identifying and characterizing retracted articles within the scientific literature is thus very important. The aims of this article were to characterize retracted articles in the ophthalmological literature. One hundred and fifty-one retracted articles published between 1966 and 2023 were retrieved. The number of retracted articles showed an upward trend from 2020 onwards. Ocular oncology (n = 37, 24.5 %) was the most frequently represented subspeciality in the retracted articles, despite retina and uveitis being the most published. The most frequent reason for retraction was fake data (n = 62, 38 %). The labelling of retracted articles on some websites was unsatisfactory, especially on the free-access illegal platform Sci-Hub. On the other hand, platforms such as Dimensions, Scite and Retraction Watch exhibit promising accuracy. Improving the labelling of retractions is needed to reduce the citation of articles after they have been retracted. Solutions to reach this goal are discussed in this article.

Retractions in academic publishing: insights from highly ranked global universities

Purpose The study aims to profile the scientific retractions in the top five global universities and provide descriptive statistics on specific subjects. Design/methodology/approach The data for reasons behind retractions is manually extracted from the Retraction Watch Database. The top five global universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2024 are selected for this study. Findings The study found that Stanford University emerged with the highest number of retractions in the assessment across institutions in the field of basic life sciences and health sciences. Notably, the predominant reasons for these retractions were identified, with “unreliable results” being the most prevalent, accounting for 53 retractions. Following closely was the category of “errors in results and/or conclusions”, contributing to 51 retractions. MIT has the longest time between publication and retraction of any subject group, with an average of 1,701 days. Research limitations/implications This study has some limitations, as it only analysed the retractions of the top five global universities. Originality/value The study provides a comprehensive analysis of retractions in academic publishing, focusing on reasons, time gaps, article types and accessibility categories across prestigious universities. The paper underscores the critical role of retractions in maintaining the integrity of scientific literature, emphasizing the importance of transparent correction and responsible peer review to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of published research. Results show that common reasons for retractions include duplication, fake peer review and plagiarism, underlining the need for ethical research standards.

Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction

Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field? A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study. The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases. Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.

Uncovering the reasons of retraction in virology: a citation and Altmetric investigation

Purpose This paper aims to delve into the critical examination of retractions in virology to identify the underlying factor that led to the retraction of scientific publications in this specialised domain. Further, this study offers insights into the impact of the retracted publications in the scholarly world vis-à-vis citation and Altmetric indicators. Design/methodology/approach The top 100 highly cited retracted articles from virology category were taken from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The Retraction Watch database was used for knowing the reasons for retraction for each retracted publication. The citation and Altmetric score of retracted publications were noted down from WoS and Altmetric.com databases, respectively. Journal Citation Report was used to note down the impact factor of the journals that have published these articles. Findings “Misconduct” (57.73%) is the most prevalent reason for the retraction of publications followed by plagiarism (18.55%) and journal issues (14.43%). The retracted papers are cited even after their retraction. Around 70.52% citations were received before and 29.47% after retraction. The highest number of retracted papers was published in the Journal of Virology (14) and Journal of Chemistry (10). High-impact factor journals such as Lancet, Cell and Nature each own one retracted paper. The study found dissemination of these publications through social media platforms with highest social media mentions (394) followed by policy and patents mentions (373) and news and blog mentions (300). Practical implications The research delves into understanding the reasons behind the retraction of virology papers and the impact of these publications through citation and Altmetric analyses. Its impactions include bolstering quality control in virology research, maintaining trust in scientific literature. Citation and Altmetric analyses offer deep insights into the broader impact of retracted papers, informing policy and publishing practices to uphold scientific integrity in virology. Originality/value This study addresses a specific and crucial aspect of scientific research retractions within the field of virology. While retractions have been studied in broader terms in scientific research, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such study has been conducted in the scientific field of virology.

Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality

ABSTRACT The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria in order to judge whether retraction notices are easily and freely accessible, informative, and transparent. We mined the Retraction Watch database and evaluated a total of 768 retraction notices from two publishers (Springer and Wiley) over three years (2010, 2015, and 2020). Per our rubric, both publishers tended to score higher on measures of openness/availability, accessibility, and clarity as to why a paper was retracted than they did in: acknowledging institutional investigations; confirming whether there was consensus among authors; and specifying which parts of any given paper warranted retraction. Springer retraction notices appeared to improve over time with respect to the rubric’s seven criteria. We observed some discrepancies among raters, indicating the difficulty in developing a robust objective rubric for evaluating retraction notices.

Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health

ObjectivesRetraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers. Study Design and SettingThis is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. ResultsTwo thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria. ConclusionsThe observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Research Publications in Critical Care.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase. Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status. All work was done electronically and retrospectively. The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list. None. For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals. Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.

The impact of affiliation naming proximity on the retrieval efficiency of Chinese universities-affiliated retractions in the Retraction Watch Database

ABSTRACT The Retraction Watch Database (RWDB) is widely used to retrieve retraction data. However, its lack of affiliation normalization hinders the retrieval efficiency of retraction data for specific research-performing organizations. A query for a university name in the RWDB may yield retraction data entries for other universities with similar names, giving rise to the issue of affiliation naming proximity. This study assessed the impact of this issue on the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 2,692 Chinese university names in English. The analysis revealed that the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 206 Chinese university names can be influenced by 408 university names. As of 2022, the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 96 Chinese university names was compromised by the involvement of 402 university names, resulting in an overall retraction inflation rate of 37.9% and an average rate of 45.0%. The findings highlight the importance of curating retraction data through affiliation-specific queries in the RWDB, adhering to the official English names of Chinese universities for scholarly publishing, and adopting the Research Organization Registry system for affiliation disambiguation. Given the significance of this issue concerning the English names of universities in non-English-speaking countries, the identified causes of the problem and proposed solutions can offer valuable insights for improving the retrieval of retraction records for non-Chinese universities in the RWDB.

Description and analysis of the characteristics of retracted articles addressing public health emergencies: A study investigating COVID-19 articles

The present study analyzed the main characteristics of retracted articles addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) published in medical journals in China and abroad. The results are anticipated to provide a reference for the publication and dissemination of articles addressing public health emergencies in the future. Information regarding the retraction of COVID-19 articles was obtained from the Retraction Watch website for the period between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2023. The main characteristics of the withdrawn COVID-19 articles were analyzed according to the distribution of journals, authors, publication period, and the reasons for retraction. Among the 235 COVID-19 articles withdrawn, the main article types were original research and reviews, the main publishers were journals without impact factors and/or preprint platforms, and the authors' countries were mostly China and the United States. The publication period was mainly in 2020 and 2021, and the number of publications is gradually decreasing. The retraction delay was 0–741 days, with a mean delay of 5.9 months. In addition to mistakes from journals/publishers, most of the top reasons for retraction included academic misconduct, especially regarding data and results. The main characteristics of retracted COVID-19 articles included publication on preprint platforms and journals with an impact factor &lt; 5. Furthermore, more retractions were due to journal/publisher errors and academic misconduct. During epidemic situations, such as COVID-19, medical journals should not only improve publishing efficiency, but also strive to strictly control academic quality.

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: a cross-sectional analysis of references and citations

ObjectivesThe aims of this study are (1) to analyze the references cited by retracted papers originated from paper mills; (2) to analyze the citations received by retracted papers originated from paper mills; and (3) to analyze the potential relationships existing between paper mill papers and their references and their citations. Study Design and SettingThis study was a cross-sectional study. All original papers retracted in 2022 identified as having originated from paper mills and had been published at least 12 months before their retraction (hereinafter “source-retracted papers”) were included. The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the source-retracted papers and Web of Science was used to identify the references contained within them and the citations received by them. We described the characteristics of the papers and journals. Additionally, 2 networks of source-retracted papers mutually interconnected via their citations and references were built: 1 with only retracted references and retracted citations and the other with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted). ResultsA total of 416 paper mill papers retracted in 2022 (sourced retracted papers) were identified, with a median of 1247 (interquartilic range, 907.8–1673.5) days between publication and retraction. Of all authors identified, 92.3% were affiliated with Chinese institutions. There were 14,411 references contained in the source-retracted papers and 8479 citations received by them; the median number of references and citations was 35 (29–40) and 16 (9–25), respectively. In total, 473 references and citations had also been retracted for being paper mill papers. Among the 416 sourced-retracted papers, 169 (41.9%) and 178 (42.8%) were referenced or were cited by at least another retracted paper, the majority of which also originated from paper mills. The first network analysis, which included source-retracted papers along with their retracted references and citations, found 3 clusters of 53, 48, and 44 retracted papers that were mutually interconnected. The second network analysis, with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted) identified a large cluster of 2530 interconnected papers. ConclusionRetracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills, displaying inter-relationships. Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications.

Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years

The aim was to describe biomedical retractions and analyse those retracted in 2000–2021 due to research misconduct among authors affiliated with European institutions. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports and PubMed as data sources. Biomedical original papers, reviews, case reports and letters with at least one author affiliated with an European institution retracted between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2021 were included. We characterized rates over time and conducted an analysis on the 4 countries with the highest number of retractions: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 2069 publications were identified. Retraction rates increased from 10.7 to 44.8 per 100,000 publications between 2000 and 2020. Research misconduct accounted for most retractions (66.8%). The reasons for misconduct-related retractions shifted over time, ranging from problems of copyright and authorship in 2000 (2.5 per 100,000 publications) to duplication in 2020 (8.6 per 100,000 publications). In 2020, the main reason was fabrication and falsification in the United Kingdom (6.2 per 100,000 publications) and duplication in Spain (13.2 per 100,000 publications).Retractions of papers by authors affiliated with European institutions are increasing and are primarily due to research misconduct. The type of misconduct has changed over time and differ between European countries.

Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022.

To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels

Abstract Purpose Recently, global science has shown an increasing open trend, however, the characteristics of research integrity of open access (OA) publications have rarely been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of retracted articles across different OA levels and discover whether OA level influences the characteristics of retracted articles. Design/methodology/approach The research conducted an analysis of 6,005 retracted publications between 2001 and 2020 from the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases. These publications were categorized based on their OA levels, including Gold OA, Green OA, and non-OA. The study explored retraction rates, time lags and reasons within these categories. Findings The findings of this research revealed distinct patterns in retraction rates among different OA levels. Publications with Gold OA demonstrated the highest retraction rate, followed by Green OA and non-OA. A comparison of retraction reasons between Gold OA and non-OA categories indicated similar proportions, while Green OA exhibited a higher proportion due to falsification and manipulation issues, along with a lower occurrence of plagiarism and authorship issues. The retraction time lag was shortest for Gold OA, followed by non-OA, and longest for Green OA. The prolonged retraction time for Green OA could be attributed to an atypical distribution of retraction reasons. Research limitations There is no exploration of a wider range of OA levels, such as Hybrid OA and Bronze OA. Practical implications The outcomes of this study suggest the need for increased attention to research integrity within the OA publications. The occurrences of falsification, manipulation, and ethical concerns within Green OA publications warrant attention from the scientific community. Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of research integrity in the realm of OA publications, shedding light on retraction patterns and reasons across different OA levels.

Citations of microRNA Biomarker Articles That Were Retracted

Retraction is a tool that journals can use to deter research misconduct and alert their audience to erroneous content published in the journals. However, retracted articles may continue to damage science if they are still cited as legitimate articles. To characterize patterns of postretraction citations, particularly in microRNA biomarker research, a field with one of the highest rates of retraction. Retracted scientific articles on microRNAs were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch between database inception and July 17, 2021, according to preestablished search strategies. Control articles with characteristics in common with retracted articles (ie, published in the same journals in the same years and months and with the same number of authors) were matched and retrieved from PubMed. Citation metrics of retractions and control articles were collected from Web of Science. PubPeer was referenced to examine the public response or comments on included retractions. Data were analyzed from September 2021 through March 2023. A total of 10 461 articles were analyzed, with 887 retractions and 9574 articles as controls. Among retracted articles, which were published from 1999 to 2021, there were 756 articles (85.23%) written by researchers affiliated with Chinese institutions. Retracted articles were cited 6327 times after retraction. Of 792 retracted articles that were cited, 621 articles (78.41%) were cited at least once after retraction and 238 articles (30.05%) were cited more often after retraction than before retraction. Overall citations (comprising citations before and after retraction) and postretraction citations accumulated over time (eg, the median [IQR] number of postretraction citations was 1 [1-2] and 23 [9-44] citations at the first 6 and 66 months, respectively, between retraction and citation retrieval). A random sample of 87 retracted articles (9.81%) recorded 478 citations after retraction, with 208 citations (43.51%) in articles published 12 months or longer after retraction. Of these citing articles, 19 articles (3.97%) mentioned the retractions. Compared with the control group of 1620 nonretracted articles, no significant differences were found in overall number of citations or citations after retraction. Among 478 articles citing retracted articles, 414 articles were found on PubMed and had matched control articles; these articles had higher odds of being subsequently retracted than 7954 matched control articles (odds ratio, 6.57; 95% CI, 3.39-12.72). In this study, retraction was not associated with a reduction in citations of retracted articles, but articles that cited retracted publications had higher odds of later retraction. These findings suggest that journals may need to implement mechanisms for detection of postretraction citations.

Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices

Abstract The aim of this work is to understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain through an analysis of the retraction notices—formal documents stating and describing the retraction of a particular publication. The retractions and the corresponding notices are identified using the data provided by Retraction Watch. Our methodology for the analysis combines a metadata analysis and a content analysis (mainly performed using a topic modelling process) of the retraction notices. Considering 343 cases of retraction, we found that many retraction notices are neither identifiable nor findable. In addition, these were not always separated from the original papers, introducing ambiguity in understanding how these notices were perceived by the community (i.e. cited). Also, we noticed that there is no systematic way to write a retraction notice. Indeed, some retraction notices presented a complete discussion of the reasons for retraction, while others tended to be more direct and succinct. We have also reported many notices having similar text while addressing different retractions. We think a further study with a larger collection should be done using the same methodology to confirm and investigate our findings further.

Analysis of Indian Retracted Publications: A Study Based on Scopus Data

ABSTRACT Retracted publications are the scholarly articles that have been withdrawn from publication by authors or journals due to errors, misconduct, or ethical concerns. The present study aims to identify and analyse retracted papers by Indian authors. The data was extracted from the Scopus and also checked from the Retraction Watch database along with the journal's website. The extracted data was analysed using MS Excel, Jamovi, and SPSS-21. The study examined the year-wise retraction rate, reasons for retraction, authorship patterns, time lag for retraction, and impact on citations after retraction. The results showed that while the number of retracted publications per year increased over time, the rate of retraction per 10K publications remained constant. Duplicate publication and plagiarism were the most common reasons for retraction. Approximately one-third of the publications were retracted within six months, and the retraction time decreased over the years, especially in open-access journals. The average number of citations per paper per year before and after retraction were nearly similar. This study could assist librarians and researchers in understanding retractions, avoiding their use, and being cautious when referencing them.