IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0044118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Michael L Grieneisen
  • Minghua Zhang

Abstract

Background: The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them. Results: We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36. Conclusions: Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael L Grieneisen & Minghua Zhang, 2012. "A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0044118
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044118&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra L. Titus & James A. Wells & Lawrence J. Rhoades, 2008. "Repairing research integrity," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7198), pages 980-982, June.
    2. Declan Butler & Jenny Hogan, 2007. "Modellers seek reason for low retraction rates," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7142), pages 236-237, May.
    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. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    2. Vanja Pupovac, 2021. "The frequency of plagiarism identified by text-matching software in scientific articles: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8981-9003, November.
    3. Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Withering Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3209, CESifo.
    4. Moritz A. Drupp & Menusch Khadjavi & Rudi Voss, 2024. "The Truth-Telling of Truth-Seekers: Evidence from Online Experiments with Scientists," CESifo Working Paper Series 10897, CESifo.
    5. David M Shaw & Thomas C Erren, 2015. "Ten Simple Rules for Protecting Research Integrity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-6, October.
    6. Matthias Fink & Johannes Gartner & Rainer Harms & Isabella Hatak, 2023. "Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 619-636, March.
    7. A. M. Soehartono & L. G. Yu & K. A. Khor, 2022. "Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7487-7497, December.
    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. André C. R. Martins, 2008. "Replication in the Deception and Convergence of Opinions Problem," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(4), pages 1-8.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0044118. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.