Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis
Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s12630-019-01508-3
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-15
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Adams, David C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nair, Singh;Yean, Chetra;Adams, David C.
背景对科学不端行为的认识不断提高，促使医学各个领域（包括骨科手术、神经外科和牙科）对论文撤回的原因进行了描述。本综述的目的是评价过去30年内麻醉领域文章撤回的原因和比率。方法基于可重复的检索策略，两位独立的评审员检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Retraction Watch网站，以识别撤回的麻醉学文章。提取的数据包括：作者姓名、出版年份、撤回文章年份、期刊名称、期刊五年影响因子、研究类型（临床、基础科学或综述）、文章撤回原因、引用次数以及是否存在指示文章撤回的水印。结果共纳入350篇文献进行数据提取。文章撤回的原因可分为六大类。撤回的最常见原因是欺诈（数据伪造或操纵），占所有撤回的近一半（49.4%），其次是缺乏适当的伦理批准（28%）。撤回的其他原因包括出版问题（例如，重复出版物），剽窃，以及方法学或其他非欺诈数据问题的研究。4位作者与大多数撤回文章（59%）相关。大多数（69%）出版物在原始文章上使用水印来表示文章被撤回。期刊影响因子范围为0.9 - 48.1（中位数[四分位距（IQR）]，3.6 [2.5-4.0]），引用最多的文章被引用197次（中位数[IQR]，13 [5-26]）。大多数撤回的文章（66%）在撤回后至少被其他期刊文章引用过一次。结论麻醉学文献撤稿主要是由于科研不端行为。除非明确说明，否则撤回通知中提供的信息有限，因此区分诚实错误和研究不端行为具有挑战性。因此，需要具有结构化撤回通知的标准化报告过程。
Background Increasing awareness of scientific misconduct has prompted various fields of medicine, including orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and dentistry to characterize the reasons for article retraction. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the reasons for and the rate of article retraction in the field of anesthesia within the last 30 years. Methods Based on a reproducible search strategy, two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Retraction Watch website to identify retracted anesthesiology articles. Extracted data included: author names, year of publication, year of the retracted article, journal name, journal five-year impact factor, research type (clinical, basic science, or review), reason for article retraction, number of citations, and presence of a watermark indicating article retraction. Results Three hundred and fifty articles were included for data extraction. Reasons for article retraction could be grouped into six broad categories. The most common reason for retraction was fraud (data fabrication or manipulation), which accounted for nearly half (49.4%) of all retractions, followed by lack of appropriate ethical approval (28%). Other reasons for retraction included publication issues (e.g., duplicate publications), plagiarism, and studies with methodologic or other non-fraud data issues. Four authors were associated with most of the retracted articles (59%). The majority (69%) of publications utilized a watermark on the original article to indicate that the article was retracted. Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors ranged from 0.9 to 48.1 (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 3.6 [2.5-4.0]), and the most cited article was referenced 197 times (median [IQR], 13 [5-26]). Most retracted articles (66%) were cited at least once by other journal articles after having been withdrawn. Conclusions Most retracted articles in anesthesiology literature were retracted because of research misconduct. Limited information is available in the retraction notices, unless explicitly stated, so it is challenging to distinguish between an honest error and research misconduct. Therefore, a standardized reporting process with structured retraction notices is desired.