Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study.
Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1756-0500-6-238
复制
发表时间：
2013-06-19
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Maisonneuve, Herve
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Decullier, Evelyne;Huot, Laure;Maisonneuve, Herve
背景技术背景：1999年至2009年，Medline医学文献中的撤回增加了10倍，但撤回仍然是一种罕见的事件，因为它占出版物的0.02%。在出版伦理委员会于2009年正式确定撤回之前，撤回通常按照非正式做法处理。我们的研究的目的是描述遵守这些guidelines.METHODS：2008年发表的所有撤回使用Medline出版类型“撤回出版物”。检索撤回通知和原始文章。对于每一个撤回，我们确定了撤回的原因，第一作者所属的国家，撤回的时间，期刊的影响因子和撤回对原始article.RESULTS的提及：总体而言，244撤回被认为是分析。正式撤回通知无法检索9。在可用的235篇撤回文章中（96%），21篇文章（9%）的原因未详细说明。最常见的原因是错误（28%），剽窃（20%），欺诈（14%）和重叠（11%）。在233篇撤稿中找到了原始论文或其位置（95%）。其中，22%是可用的，没有提到的retraction.CONCLUSION：一个标准的撤回形式可能是有帮助的，与检查清单的主要原因，让编辑自由地为读者提供任何进一步的信息。原始文章应保持可用，并明确提及撤回。
BACKGROUND: Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines.METHODS: All retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type "retraction of publication". The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article.RESULTS: Overall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction.CONCLUSION: A standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.