Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Kowalczuk, Maria K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moylan, Elizabeth C.;Kowalczuk, Maria K.
目的：评估从BioMed中央期刊上撤稿的原因，撤稿通知是否遵守发表伦理委员会(COPE)的指导方针，以及撤稿通知在已发表文章中的比例是否越来越高。设计/背景：对2000年1月至2015年12月期间134篇撤稿的横断面回顾分析。结果：在此时间段内发表了134份撤稿通知。虽然它们占所有已发表文章的0.07%(190514篇，不包括增刊、更正、撤回和委托内容)，但撤稿率正在上升。关于撤回的COPE指南得到遵守，因为每次撤回都给出了明确的理由。然而，一些通知没有记录是谁撤回了这篇文章(8篇，6%)，另一些通知不清楚根本原因是诚实的错误还是不当行为(15篇，11%)。最大比例的通知是由作者发布的(47篇，35%)。大多数撤回是由于某种形式的不当行为(102篇，76%)，即损害同行审查(44篇，33%)，剽窃(22篇，16%)和数据伪造/伪造(10篇，7%)。诚实错误占17篇(13%)，其中错误发表文章10篇(7%)。从发表到撤回的平均天数为337.5天。结论：撤回的最常见原因是同行评审的妥协。然而，这些案件中的大多数可以追溯到2015年3月，似乎是有人系统性地试图操纵几家出版商的同行审查。由于抄袭造成的撤稿占第二大类别，可以通过在发表前筛选手稿来减少，尽管这不是保证。在出版之前，通过适当的数据共享和存储，可以减少因数据问题而导致的撤回。对各类撤回通知采用核对表(与COPE准则挂钩)和模板，将提高今后撤回通知的透明度。
Objectives: To assess why articles are retracted from BioMed Central journals, whether retraction notices adhered to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and are becoming more frequent as a proportion of published articles.Design/setting: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 134 retractions from January 2000 to December 2015.Results: 134 retraction notices were published during this timeframe. Although they account for 0.07% of all articles published (190 514 excluding supplements, corrections, retractions and commissioned content), the rate of retraction is rising. COPE guidelines on retraction were adhered to in that an explicit reason for each retraction was given. However, some notices did not document who retracted the article (eight articles, 6%) and others were unclear whether the underlying cause was honest error or misconduct (15 articles, 11%). The largest proportion of notices was issued by the authors (47 articles, 35%). The majority of retractions were due to some form of misconduct (102 articles, 76%), that is, compromised peer review (44 articles, 33%), plagiarism (22 articles, 16%) and data falsification/fabrication (10 articles, 7%). Honest error accounted for 17 retractions (13%) of which 10 articles (7%) were published in error. The median number of days from publication to retraction was 337.5 days.Conclusions: The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review. However, the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Retractions due to plagiarism account for the second largest category and may be reduced by screening manuscripts before publication although this is not guaranteed. Retractions due to problems with the data may be reduced by appropriate data sharing and deposition before publication. Adopting a checklist (linked to COPE guidelines) and templates for various classes of retraction notices would increase transparency of retraction notices in future.