Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018
- PMID: 31300549
- PMCID: PMC6860402
- DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137
Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018
Erratum in
-
Correction: Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018.J Med Genet. 2020 Jun;57(6):435-436. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137corr1. Epub 2020 Mar 31. J Med Genet. 2020. PMID: 32234732 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Introduction: Between 0.02% and 0.04% of articles are retracted. We aim to: (a) describe the reasons for retraction of genetics articles and the time elapsed between the publication of an article and that of the retraction notice because of research misconduct (ie, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); and (b) compare all these variables between retracted medical genetics (MG) and non-medical genetics (NMG) articles.
Methods: All retracted genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, duplication, unreliability, and authorship issues. Articles subject to investigation by company/institution, journal, US Office for Research Integrity or third party were also retrieved.
Results: 1582 retracted genetics articles (MG, n=690; NMG, n=892) were identified . Research misconduct and duplication were involved in 33% and 24% of retracted papers, respectively; 37% were subject to investigation. Only 0.8% of articles involved both fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. In this century the incidence of both plagiarism and duplication increased statistically significantly in genetics retracted articles; conversely, fabrication/falsification was significantly reduced. Time to retraction due to scientific misconduct was statistically significantly shorter in the period 2006-2018 compared with 1970-2000. Fabrication/falsification was statistically significantly more common in NMG (28%) than in MG (19%) articles. MG articles were significantly more frequently investigated (45%) than NMG articles (31%). Time to retraction of articles due to fabrication/falsification was significantly shorter for MG (mean 4.7 years) than for NMG (mean 6.4 years) articles; no differences for plagiarism (mean 2.3 years) were found. The USA (mainly NMG articles) and China (mainly MG articles) accounted for the largest number of retracted articles.
Conclusion: Genetics is a discipline with a high article retraction rate (estimated retraction rate 0.15%). Fabrication/falsification and plagiarism were almost mutually exclusive reasons for article retraction. Retracted MG articles were more frequently subject to investigation than NMG articles. Retracted articles due to fabrication/falsification required 2.0-2.8 times longer to retract than when plagiarism was involved.
Keywords: duplication; fabrication/falsification; genetics; medical genetics; non−medical genetics; plagiarism; research misconduct; retraction notices.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Similar articles
-
For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature.Account Res. 2021 Jul;28(5):280-296. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479. Epub 2020 Oct 30. Account Res. 2021. PMID: 33124464
-
Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology.BJOG. 2019 Aug;126(9):1134-1140. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15689. Epub 2019 Apr 21. BJOG. 2019. PMID: 30903641
-
Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018.Med Clin (Barc). 2020 Feb 28;154(4):125-130. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2019.04.018. Epub 2019 Jun 22. Med Clin (Barc). 2020. PMID: 31239080 English, Spanish.
-
Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.PLoS One. 2019 Apr 15;14(4):e0214272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214272. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30986211 Free PMC article.
-
Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature.Am J Surg. 2018 Nov;216(5):851-855. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.11.033. Epub 2017 Dec 6. Am J Surg. 2018. PMID: 29229380 Review.
Cited by
-
An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Jan;163(1):19-30. doi: 10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z. Epub 2020 Oct 16. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021. PMID: 33064200 Free PMC article.
-
The Profile of Articles on AXIN2 Mutations, Oligodontia, and Ethical Statements in Dental Research.J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Oct;17(4):412-425. doi: 10.1177/15562646221116801. Epub 2022 Jul 25. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022. PMID: 35876356 Free PMC article.
-
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.Scientometrics. 2021;126(8):6871-6889. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03987-y. Epub 2021 May 23. Scientometrics. 2021. PMID: 34054160 Free PMC article.
-
Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Oct 23;38(41):e333. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e333. J Korean Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37873630 Free PMC article.
-
[The COVID-19 Pandemic Changes the Scientific Publication System].Arch Bronconeumol. 2021 Jan;57:17-18. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2020.10.010. Epub 2020 Oct 22. Arch Bronconeumol. 2021. PMID: 34629636 Free PMC article. Spanish. No abstract available.
References
-
- US Department of Health and Human Services 42 cfr parts 50 and 93. public health service policies on research misconduct; final rule. Fed Regist 2005;70:28386–400. - PubMed
-
- Retraction Watch Database The Retraction Watch Database, version: 1.0.5.5. Available: http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources