IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i9d10.1007_s11192-021-04104-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Ghorbi

    (University of Tehran)

  • Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh

    (University of Tehran)

  • Erfan Ghaderi-Azad

    (University of Tehran)

  • Marcel Ausloos

    (University of Leicester
    GRAPES
    Bucharest University of Economic Studies)

  • Marcin Kozak

    (University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001–2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The maximum time-lag (about 3000 days) occurred for papers retracted due to duplicate publications; the minimum time-lag (fewer than 100 days) was for papers retracted due to “unspecified cause” (most of these were conference papers). As many as 48 (14%) of the retracted papers were published in two medical journals: Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). From the institutional point of view, Islamic Azad University was the inglorious leader, contributing to over one-half (53.1%) of retracted papers. Among the 343 retraction notices, 64 papers pertained to international collaborations with researchers from mainly Asian and European countries; Malaysia having the most retractions (22 papers). Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04104-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04104-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04104-9
    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/s11192-021-04104-9?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. Richard Van Noorden, 2011. "Science publishing: The trouble with retractions," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7367), pages 26-28, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Kiran Savanur & R. Srikanth, 2010. "Modified collaborative coefficient: a new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 365-371, August.
    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. M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2018. "An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1315-1328, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Ausloos, Marcel & Nedic, Olgica & Dekanski, Aleksandar, 2016. "Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 456(C), pages 197-203.
    8. 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.
    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. Sida Feng & Lingzi Feng & Fang Han & Ye Zhang & Yanqing Ren & Lixue Wang & Junpeng Yuan, 2024. "Citation network analysis of retractions in molecular biology field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4795-4817, August.

    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. 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.
    3. Shenghui Li & Wenyan Xu & Jingqi Yin, 2023. "Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3805-3826, July.
    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. José Luis Ortega & Lorena Delgado-Quirós, 2024. "The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3769-3785, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    10. Bakthavachalam Elango, 2021. "Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3965-3981, May.
    11. Bakthavachalam Elango, 2022. "Characteristics of retracted editorial articles in the biomedical literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1431-1438, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Istvan-Szilard Szilagyi & Gregor A. Schittek & Christoph Klivinyi & Holger Simonis & Torsten Ulrich & Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, 2022. "Citation of retracted research: a case-controlled, ten-year follow-up scientometric analysis of Scott S. Reuben’s malpractice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2611-2620, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Bakthavachalam Elango & Marcin Kozak & Periyaswamy Rajendran, 2019. "Analysis of retractions in Indian science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1081-1094, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    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. 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.
    20. Winnink, J.J. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & van Raan, A.F.J., 2019. "Searching for new breakthroughs in science: How effective are computerised detection algorithms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 673-686.

    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:126:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04104-9. 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.