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
Review
. 2020 Nov 30;10(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s40945-020-00092-w.

Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis

Marco Bordino  1 , Elisa Ravizzotti  2 , Stefano Vercelli  3
Affiliations
Review

Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis

Marco Bordino et al. Arch Physiother. .

Abstract

Background and aim: The volume of withdrawn publications in scholarly disciplines has grown steadily, but there is little awareness about this issue in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to analyze the extent of retracted articles pertaining to rehabilitation.

Methods: Retracted articles were searched in 4 different bibliographic databases from their inception to April 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, WikiLetters and Retraction Watch. Three independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the retrieved articles to the rehabilitation area.

Results: Of 280 rehabilitation-related publications retracted between 1984 and 2020, 83 (29.6%) were published in 55 full open access journals and 197 (70.4%) were published in 147 traditional, non-open access or hybrid journals. In the last 10 years (2009-2018) there was a significant steady increase in both the total number of retractions (p < 0.005; r = 0.856; R2 = 0.733) and retraction rate per year (p < 0.05; r = 0.751; R2 = 0.564). However, the number of retractions represents a very small percentage (~ 0.1%) of the overall volume of publications in rehabilitation.

Conclusions: Our data indicate that the number of retracted articles in rehabilitation is increasing, although the phenomenon is still limited. However, the true prevalence of misconduct may go unnoticed due to the large number of low-quality journals not indexed in the searched databases. Physiotherapists should be aware of the danger of misleading information originating from withdrawn publications.

Keywords: Physiotherapy; Rehabilitation; Research misconduct; Retracted publication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram outlining the study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of retracted articles across the period 1984–2020. Legend: OA, open access journals; N-OA, non full open access journals
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Trends in publication and retractions in the rehabilitation area in the period 2009–2018. Green dots represent all articles published in PubMed (N/100), and blue dots represent retracted articles included in this study. Linear trend lines are also shown
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Retraction rate per 10,000 publications in the period 2009–2018
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. COPE Council . COPE guidelines: retraction guidelines. Version 2. 2019.
    1. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):113–117. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.038125. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: who is responsible for scientific integrity? AMWA J. 2011;26(1):2–7.
    1. Sheth BP, Thaker VS. Scientific retraction: a synonym for pseudoscience? Acta Bioeth. 2014;20(1):93–97. doi: 10.4067/S1726-569X2014000100010. - DOI
    1. Armstrong D, Winstein KJ. Top pain scientist fabricated data in studies, hospital says. Wall St J. 2009;A:12.

LinkOut - more resources