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 May 12:2:5.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1. eCollection 2017.

Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

Anthony Bozzo  1   2 , Kamal Bali  1 , Nathan Evaniew  1 , Michelle Ghert  3
Affiliations

Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

Anthony Bozzo et al. Res Integr Peer Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles.

Methods: We searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data.

Results: Following database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8-5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6-51), with a range of 0-742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form.

Conclusions: Retractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted.

Keywords: Cancer; Cancer research; Oncology; Oncology research; Research ethics; Retraction; Retractions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Identification of retracted articles
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Classification of retracted papers
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Annual number of retractions in cancer research publications. The number of retracted articles per year has rapidly increased. Due to the lag time between publication and retraction, only two retracted articles were identified in 2015 at the time of the literature search
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Proportion of retracted publications in relation to the total annual number of cancer research articles
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Atlas MC. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(2):242. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coats AJ. Ethical authorship and publishing. Int J Cardiol. 2009;131(2):149–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.11.048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF. Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(11):807–9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.023069. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez‐Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401143. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Noorden R. The trouble with retractions. Nature. 2011;478(7367):26–8. doi: 10.1038/478026a. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources