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
. 2024 Dec 5;107(11):1277-1283.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.24.00591.

Trends in Retraction of Orthopaedic Research Articles

Paul G Guirguis  1 , Ankit Punreddy, Mina Botros, Mattie Raiford, Catherine Humphrey, John Gorczyca, John Ketz
Affiliations

Trends in Retraction of Orthopaedic Research Articles

Paul G Guirguis et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: Despite the use of in-depth peer-review processes, there occasionally are issues with published manuscripts that require retraction. The purpose of the present study was to explore the reasons for the retraction of orthopaedic research articles, with consideration of the journal impact factor and the orthopaedic subspecialty.

Methods: In 2023, a database search was conducted for retracted papers written in the English language in the orthopaedic literature. The initial search yielded 3,147 results. These papers were screened by 3 independent reviewers, and 207 studies were jointly identified as retracted orthopaedic research articles. We collected data regarding the reasons for retraction, the date of publication, the date of retraction, the orthopaedic subspecialty, the impact factor of the journal, the countries of research origin, and the study design.

Results: Of the 207 retracted articles, 104 (50.2%) were clinical science studies and 103 (49.8%) were basic science studies. The reasons for retraction were plagiarism (n = 39), intrinsic errors (n = 33), duplication (n = 30), fraud (n = 25), manipulation of the peer-review process (n = 20), no reason given (n = 18), no approval from an ethics board (n = 17), author's choice (n = 9), data ownership and/or copyright issue (n = 9), and other (n = 7). The journal impact factors ranged from 0.17 to 9.80, with a median of 2.90. The mean time from publication to retraction across all of the studies was 32.1 months (standard deviation = 37.3 months; n = 201).

Conclusions: An analysis of orthopaedic research revealed that the majority of retractions of articles were due to plagiarism, study errors, or duplicated material; retractions occurred internationally and across a wide range of journals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: No external funding was received for this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I314 ).

References

    1. Abritis AJ. An Assessment of Retractions as a Measure of Scientific Misconduct and Impact on Public Health Risks. 2015. Accessed 2024 Oct 4. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5630
    1. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013 Jul 8;8(7):e68397. [Erratum in: PLoS One. 2013;8(7)].
    1. Wright K, McDaid C. Reporting of article retractions in bibliographic databases and online journals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011 Apr;99(2):164-7.
    1. Surgery Journal Editors Group. Consensus statement on the adoption of the COPE guidelines. Am J Surg. 2010 Jul;200(1):1.
    1. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 18;144(8):609-13.

LinkOut - more resources