Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008
Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/jme.2010.040964
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Williams, Peter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wager, Elizabeth;Williams, Peter
背景期刊编辑对他们发表的内容负责，因此，如果发现发表的作品不可靠，他们有责任纠正记录。用于这种校正的一种方法是收回物品。传闻证据表明，期刊在撤稿方面的政策和做法缺乏一致性。为了制定指导方针，我们回顾了撤回在Medline，以发现如何和为什么文章retracted.Methods我们检索所有可用的Medline撤回从2005年至2008年和三分之一的随机选择，从1988年至2004年。这导致了312次撤回（总共870次）。详细的撤回，包括撤回的原因，记录了由两名investigator.Results Medline撤回急剧增加，自1980年以来，目前占0.02%的纳入文章。作者（63%），编辑（21%），期刊（6%），出版商（2%）和机构（1%）发布了撤回。撤回的原因包括诚实错误或不可复制的发现（40%），研究不端行为（28%），冗余出版物（17%）和未说明/不清楚（5%）。结论期刊的撤稿实践并不统一。有些撤回没有说明原因，因此无法区分错误和不当行为。我们利用我们的发现为撤回指南提供了信息。
Background Journal editors are responsible for what they publish and therefore have a duty to correct the record if published work is found to be unreliable. One method for such correction is retraction of an article. Anecdotal evidence suggested a lack of consistency in journal policies and practices regarding retraction. In order to develop guidelines, we reviewed retractions in Medline to discover how and why articles were retracted.Methods We retrieved all available Medline retractions from 2005 to 2008 and a one-in-three random selection of those from 1988 to 2004. This yielded 312 retractions (from a total of 870). Details of the retraction including the reason for retraction were recorded by two investigators.Results Medline retractions have increased sharply since 1980 and currently represent 0.02% of included articles. Retractions were issued by authors (63%), editors (21%), journals (6%), publishers (2%) and institutions (1%). Reasons for retraction included honest error or non-replicable findings (40%), research misconduct (28%), redundant publication (17%) and unstated/ unclear (5%). Some of the stated reasons might have been addressed by corrections.Conclusions Journals' retraction practices are not uniform. Some retractions fail to state the reason, and therefore fail to distinguish error from misconduct. We have used our findings to inform guidelines on retractions.