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
. 2020 Dec;26(6):3455-3463.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6. Epub 2020 Nov 4.

Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers

Negin Kamali  1 , Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi  2 , Farid Rahimi  3
Affiliations

Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers

Negin Kamali et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Retractions of scientific papers published by some Iran-affiliated scientists in the preceding decade have attracted much attention and publicity; however, the reasons for these retractions have not been documented. We searched the Retraction Watch Database to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and aimed to outline the predominant reasons for retractions. The reasons included fake peer-review, authorship dispute, fabricated data, plagiarism, conflict of interest, erroneous data, and duplication. The Fisher's exact test was used to investigate the associations between retractions and their underlying reasons. We selected P < 0.05 to indicate the statistically significant differences. We found 697 retracted papers. Duplication (27%), plagiarism (26%), and fake peer-review (21%) were the most frequent reasons for retractions. Our study highlights the importance of urgent intervention to prevent the misconduct and questionable research practices that lead to retractions in Iran. Continually educating the scientists and postgraduate students about the ethics and norms of scientific publishing is an important measure to ensure publication of reliable, worthy, and impactful papers.

Keywords: Duplication; Ethics in publishing; Fake peer-review; Iran; Manuscript; Retraction of publication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2017). Chinese and Iranian scientific publications: Fast growth and poor ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1
    1. Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.
    1. Bhargava, M., Vaswani, V., & Vaswani, R. (2019). Ethics-related guidelines for authors and article retractions: How do Indian biomedical journals measure up? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2019.076
    1. Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: A systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1
    1. Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty.’ Science, 25(1), 1–5.

LinkOut - more resources