Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 6;10(1):253.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y.

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Túlio Eduardo Nogueira  1 , Andréia Souza Gonçalves  1 , Cláudio Rodrigues Leles  1 , Aline Carvalho Batista  1 , Luciane Rezende Costa  2
Affiliations

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Túlio Eduardo Nogueira et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Background: Publication retraction is a mechanism to preserve the scientific literature against publications that contain seriously flawed or erroneous data, redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, and other features that compromise the integrity of science. An increase in the occurrence of retractions in recent years has been reported. Nevertheless, there is scarce information on this topic concerning publications in dentistry and related specialties. Thus, this study aimed to investigate retracted papers published in dental journals.

Methods: Data collection included an exploratory search in PubMed and a specific search in SCImago Journal Rank indexed journals, complemented by the cases reported on the Retraction Watch website and in PubMed. All 167 dental journals included in SCImago were searched for identification of retracted articles up to March 2016. The selected retracted articles and their corresponding retraction notices were recorded and assessed for classification according to the reason for retraction and other additional information.

Results: Forty of the 167 journals scrutinised at SCImago (23.9%) had at least one retracted article, and four additional journals were identified from the Retraction Watch website. A total of 72 retracted found were retracted for the reasons: redundant publication (20.8%), plagiarism (18.1%), misconduct (13.8%), overlap (13.6%) and honest error (9.7%). Higher number of retractions were reported in those journals with cites/doc <2.0-n = 49 (74.2%). The types of studies were mainly laboratory studies (34.7%), case reports (22.2%) and review articles (13.9%).

Conclusions: The approach to ethical problems in papers published in dental scientific journals is still incipient; retractions were mostly due to the authors' malpractice and were more frequently related to journals with less impact.

Keywords: Bioethics; Dentistry; Duplicate publication; Ethics; Plagiarism; Retracted articles; Retracted publication; Retraction of publication; Scientific frauds; Scientific misconduct.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The escalation of retracted papers in PubMed (numbers collected on March 15, 2016)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Absolute frequency (n) of the reasons for retraction grouped according to the cites/doc of the journals
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Absolute frequency of retracted articles in different dental specialties
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Absolute frequency of retracted articles according to the type of study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. US National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet—errata, retractions, partial retractions, corrected and republished articles, duplicate publications, comments (including author replies), updates, patient summaries, and republished (reprinted) articles policy for Medline [Internet]. Bethesda: US National Library of Medicine; 2015. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed 14 Jun 2016.
    1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction guidelines [Internet]. COPE; 2009. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2016.
    1. Cosentino AM, Veríssimo D. Ending the citation of retracted papers. Conserv Biol. 2016;30(3):676–678. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12676. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(9):567–570. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040964. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(42):17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources