Limits...
A comprehensive comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 from the scholarly literature.

Damineni RS, Sardiwal KK, Waghle SR, Dakshyani MB - J Int Soc Prev Community Dent (2015 Jan-Feb)

Bottom Line: To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years.The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry, Albadar Rural Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Science is a dynamic subject with ever-changing concepts and is said to be self-correcting. One of the major mechanisms of self-correction is retraction of flawed work.

Aim: To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years.

Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in January 2014, and analysis of articles published in 2012 and 2013 was carried out.

Results: A total of 155 articles in 2012 and 182 in 2013 were retracted, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.

Conclusion: Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world. So, editors should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and make an effective strategy in order to reduce such misconduct, as it reflects very adversely not only in the scientific community but also in the general public.

No MeSH data available.


Representing the incidence of retraction of various types of articles
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4355845&req=5

Figure 1: Representing the incidence of retraction of various types of articles

Mentions: Table 2 shows that in both 2012 and 2013, original articles followed by case reports and reviews constituted the maximum percentage of total retracted articles [Figure 1]. Time interval between submission and retraction reduced to a mean of 2.2 years in 2013 as compared to 2.8 years in 2012.


A comprehensive comparative analysis of articles retracted in 2012 and 2013 from the scholarly literature.

Damineni RS, Sardiwal KK, Waghle SR, Dakshyani MB - J Int Soc Prev Community Dent (2015 Jan-Feb)

Representing the incidence of retraction of various types of articles
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4355845&req=5

Figure 1: Representing the incidence of retraction of various types of articles
Mentions: Table 2 shows that in both 2012 and 2013, original articles followed by case reports and reviews constituted the maximum percentage of total retracted articles [Figure 1]. Time interval between submission and retraction reduced to a mean of 2.2 years in 2013 as compared to 2.8 years in 2012.

Bottom Line: To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years.The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry, Albadar Rural Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Science is a dynamic subject with ever-changing concepts and is said to be self-correcting. One of the major mechanisms of self-correction is retraction of flawed work.

Aim: To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years.

Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in January 2014, and analysis of articles published in 2012 and 2013 was carried out.

Results: A total of 155 articles in 2012 and 182 in 2013 were retracted, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013.

Conclusion: Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world. So, editors should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and make an effective strategy in order to reduce such misconduct, as it reflects very adversely not only in the scientific community but also in the general public.

No MeSH data available.