IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v114y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2621-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries

Author

Listed:
  • M. D. Ribeiro

    (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)

  • S. M. R. Vasconcelos

    (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)

Abstract

The research output of countries is among the indicators that help us understand the dynamics of science. Increasingly, these dynamics have been marked by changes in scientific communication. Researchers’ attitudes toward open science, alternative models of publication and toward originality are among the elements shaping the current scientific landscape. This changing panorama reflects on the attitude of authors, editors and publishers toward the correction of the literature, a practice that is encountered to different extents in different fields. This practice may suggest, among several issues, commitment of the scientific community to boosting the reliability of the research record. Would the research output of countries have any association with this panorama? We analyzed 1623 retractions issued in 2013–2015 and discussed in Retraction Watch (RW), www.retractionwatch.com . These retractions account for a considerable fraction of the total of retraction notices in PubMed in the same period. They were categorized by reason, field and country (that of the corresponding author). These retractions were distributed among 71 countries, with 15 countries accounting for a major share (85%)—most of those with the largest number of publications in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). However, there is no consistent pattern for the relationship between ranking in SJR and ranking in number of retractions across countries in our RW dataset, which is skewed mostly by the fact that the RW website tends to post newsworthy retractions, with a bias toward biomedical and clinical sciences. This caveat notwithstanding, the prevalence of the most productive countries in our dataset of retractions is worth noting. Gradually, retractions have been permeating the dynamics of research productivity in many countries but, so far, there is limited knowledge of this interaction. We believe it should be further explored.

Suggested Citation

  • M. D. Ribeiro & S. M. R. Vasconcelos, 2018. "Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 719-734, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2621-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sultan Ayoub Meo & Abeer A Al Masri & Adnan Mahmood Usmani & Almas Naeem Memon & Syed Ziauddin Zaidi, 2013. "Impact of GDP, Spending on R&D, Number of Universities and Scientific Journals on Research Publications among Asian Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Richard Van Noorden, 2011. "Science publishing: The trouble with retractions," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7367), pages 26-28, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Wolfgang Glänzel & Raphael Beck & Katrin Milzow & Stig Slipersæter & Gábor Tóth & Michał Kołodziejski & Pei-Shan Chi, 2016. "Data collection and use in research funding and performing organisations. General outlines and first results of a project launched by Science Europe," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 825-835, February.
    5. Jane Qiu, 2010. "Publish or perish in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7278), pages 142-142, January.
    6. Tianwei He, 2013. "Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 555-561, August.
    7. Aparna Basu, 2006. "Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 361-375, September.
    8. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    9. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    10. David Giofrè & Geoff Cumming & Luca Fresc & Ingrid Boedker & Patrizio Tressoldi, 2017. "The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Minghua Zhang & Michael L. Grieneisen, 2013. "The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 573-587, August.
    12. Michael Batty, 2003. "The Geography of Scientific Citation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(5), pages 761-765, May.
    13. Dag W. Aksnes & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2004. "The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(2), pages 213-224, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenjun Liu & Lei Lei, 2021. "Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4687-4700, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bakthavachalam Elango & Marcin Kozak & Periyaswamy Rajendran, 2019. "Analysis of retractions in Indian science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1081-1094, May.
    5. Ali Ghorbi & Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh & Erfan Ghaderi-Azad & Marcel Ausloos & Marcin Kozak, 2021. "Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7351-7371, September.
    6. Behzad Gholampour & Sajad Gholampour & Alireza Noruzi & Clément Arsenault & Thomas Haertlé & Ali Akbar Saboury, 2022. "Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1841-1865, April.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    8. Nobuko Miyairi & Han-Wen Chang, 2012. "Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited papers from Taiwan, 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 197-205, July.
    9. John N. Parker & Stefano Allesina & Christopher J. Lortie, 2013. "Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 469-480, February.
    10. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    11. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    12. John N. Parker & Christopher Lortie & Stefano Allesina, 2010. "Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 129-143, October.
    13. Kiran Sharma & Satyam Mukherjee, 2024. "The ripple effect of retraction on an author’s collaboration network," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1519-1531, October.
    14. Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu & Guangwei Hu, 2018. "Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2019. "Spatial mobility in elite academic institutions in economics: the case of Spain," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 141-172, June.
    16. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    17. Ali Ghorbi & Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh & Erfan Ghaderi-Azad & Marcel Ausloos & Marcin Kozak, 2021. "Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7351-7371, September.
    18. Pachankis, Yang, 2022. "The translation of uniformity or a sociology of knowledge: issues of publishing ethics in the 21st entury," MPRA Paper 115812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Pedro Albarrán & Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2017. "Geographic mobility and research productivity in a selection of top world economics departments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 241-265, April.
    20. Karpov, Alexander, 2016. "Evolutionary Justification of Plagiarism," MPRA Paper 70976, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2621-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.