IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i2p18-d799151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions

Author

Listed:
  • Catalin Toma

    (Independent Researcher, 700054 Iasi, Romania)

  • Liliana Padureanu

    (Department of Immunology and Alergology, Emergency Clinical Hospital ‘St. Spiridon’, 700098 Iasi, Romania)

  • Bogdan Toma

    (Faculty of Medicine, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iași, 700098 Iasi, Romania)

Abstract

Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the busi-ness model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze Pub-Med-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 Pub-Med-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the edi-tor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Catalin Toma & Liliana Padureanu & Bogdan Toma, 2022. "Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:18-:d:799151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/18/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/2/18/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matan Shelomi, 2014. "Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Philippe Mongeon & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 535-542, March.
    3. Emma Bilbrey & Natalie O'Dell & Jonathan Creamer, 2014. "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    6. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    7. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Richard Van Noorden, 2013. "Open access: The true cost of science publishing," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 426-429, March.
    9. Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2020. "Reform retractions to make them more transparent," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7811), pages 149-149, June.
    10. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    11. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    12. Cox, Adam & Craig, Russell & Tourish, Dennis, 2018. "Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 924-935.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    2. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    3. Lingzi Feng & Junpeng Yuan & Liying Yang, 2020. "An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1445-1457, November.
    4. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    5. Caroline Lievore & Priscila Rubbo & Celso Biynkievycz Santos & Claudia Tânia Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti, 2021. "Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6871-6889, August.
    6. Le, Tam-Tri & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2022. "Tra cứu nhanh về hai chủ đề quan trọng với học giới," OSF Preprints b4sma, Center for Open Science.
    7. Horton, Joanne & Krishna Kumar, Dhanya & Wood, Anthony, 2020. "Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    8. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    9. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    10. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    11. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    12. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    13. Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu & Guangwei Hu, 2018. "Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Morretta, Valentina & Vurchio, Davide & Carrazza, Stefano, 2022. "The socio-economic value of scientific publications: The case of Earth Observation satellites," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    15. Diego Ponte & Bozena I. Mierzejewska & Stefan Klein, 2017. "The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 97-100, May.
    16. Walter R. Schumm & Duane W. Crawford & Lorenza Lockett & Asma bin Ateeq & Abdullah AlRashed, 2023. "Can Retracted Social Science Articles Be Distinguished from Non-Retracted Articles by Some of the Same Authors, Using Benford’s Law or Other Statistical Methods?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Nguyen, Minh-Hoang & La, Viet-Phuong & Ho, Manh-Toan & Huyen, Nguyen Thanh Thanh & Le, Tam-Tri, 2021. "Vuong Quan Hoang," OSF Preprints u7jms, Center for Open Science.
    18. Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues & Ernest Abadal & Breno Kricheldorf Hermes de Araújo, 2020. "Open access publishers: The new players," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Felicitas Hesselmann & Verena Wienefoet & Martin Reinhart, 2014. "Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-10, July.
    20. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:18-:d:799151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.