Étiquette : Retractions of Publications

Catégories
EN

Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

Author : Ben Rawlins

This study examines the relationship between research integrity and open access (OA) publishing models using data from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex. Analysing 60,608 retracted publications from 2009 to 2024, the article traces how retraction patterns have shifted alongside the expansion of OA, with gold OA surpassing closed access as the dominant modality among retracted articles by 2023.

The analysis also highlights the economic dimensions of research integrity and OA, with an estimated US$41.9 million in article processing charges (APCs) collected by publishers for research that was later retracted.

These findings raise concerns about APC‑based publishing models that directly link publisher revenue to publication volume, creating structural tensions for editorial oversight and quality control. Rather than framing OA as inherently more or less prone to integrity failures, the article argues that these challenges reflect broader incentive structures within contemporary scholarly publishing.

Addressing them will require co‑ordinated governance efforts among publishers, funders, libraries and research institutions to ensure that OA is matched by accountability, transparency and trust in scholarly research.

URL : Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.763

Catégories
EN

Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles

Author : Baraa Khuder

Retractions issued for misconduct offer a unique window into how questionable research is rhetorically constructed and made to appear credible. This study investigates how engaging with retracted articles can serve as a pedagogical tool for reviewer training, with particular attention to the rhetorical mechanisms through which unreliability is performed.

Twenty STEM doctoral researchers analyzed self-selected retracted papers using guided critical-reading questions to identify problematic rhetorical features. Across the analyses, five recurring issues emerged: intertextual falsification, methodological opacity, rhetorical inconsistency, rhetorical overstatement, and terminological distortion.

The findings indicate that this approach has the potential to raise doctoral students’ rhetorical sensitivity by enabling them to detect subtle markers of unreliability and to adopt a more evaluative rhetorical stance toward scholarly texts.

Retracted articles thus can provide an authentic pedagogical resource for developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity within doctoral education.

URL : Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2607681

 

Catégories
EN

Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management

Authors : Wanfei Hu, Guiliang Yan, Jingyu Zhang, Zhenli Chen, Qing Qian, Sizhu Wu

Background

Scientific data, the cornerstone of scientific endeavors, face management challenges amid technological advances. While retractions are analyzed, a rigorous focus on data problems leading to them is missing.

Methods

This study collected 49,979 retraction records up to 17 December 2023. After screening 16,842 records were related to data problems and 19,656 were due to other reasons. Methods such as descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and the BERTopic (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Topic Modelling) were applied to conduct a topic analysis of article titles.

Result

The results show that since 2000, retractions due to data problems have increased significantly (p < 0.001), with the percentage in 2023 exceeding 75%. Among 16,842 data-related retractions, 59.0% were in Basic Life Sciences and 40.2% in Health Sciences. Data problems involve accuracy, reliability, validity, and integrity. There are significant differences (p < 0.001) in subjects, journal quartiles, retraction intervals, and other characteristics between data-related and other retractions. Data-related retractions are more concentrated in high-impact journals (Q1 37.6% and Q2 43.0%).

Conclusions

Institutions, publishers, and journals should adopt image-screening tools, enforce data deposition, standardize retraction notices, provide ethics training, and strengthen peer review to address these data problems, guiding better data management and healthier scientific development.

URL : Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2531987

Catégories
EN

Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Marianna Lehtisaari, Irini Katsirea, Kim Holmberg, Er-Te Zheng

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o-mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each.

Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19).

In a follow-up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o-mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two-thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago.

The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

URL : Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2018

Catégories
EN

Is gold open access helpful for academic purification? A causal inference analysis based on retracted articles in biochemistry

Authors : Er-Te Zheng, Zhichao Fang, Hui-Zhen Fu

The relationship between transparency and credibility has long been a subject of theoretical and analytical exploration within the realm of social sciences, and it has recently attracted increasing attention in the context of scientific research. Retraction serves as a pivotal mechanism in addressing concerns about research integrity.

This study aims to empirically examining the relationship between open access level and the effectiveness of current mechanism, specifically academic purification centered on retracted articles. In this study, we used matching and Difference-in-Difference (DiD) methods to examine whether gold open access is helpful for academic purification in biochemistry field.

We collected gold open access (Gold OA) and non-open access (non-OA) biochemistry retracted articles as the treatment group, and matched them with corresponding unretracted articles as the control group from 2005 to 2021 based on Web of Science and Retraction Watch database.

The results showed that compared to non-OA, Gold OA is advantageous in reducing the retraction time of flawed articles, but does not demonstrate a significant advantage in reducing citations after retraction. This indicates that Gold OA may help expedite the detection and retraction of flawed articles, ultimately promoting the practice of responsible research.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103640

Catégories
EN

Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers

Authors : Shahan Ali Memon, Kinga Makovi, Bedoor AlShebli

Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned post-publication. While retractions do not completely eliminate papers from the record, they have far-reaching consequences for retracted authors and their careers, serving as a visible and permanent signal of potential transgressions.

Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and co-authors’ citations; however, the underlying mechanisms driving these effects and the broader impacts beyond these traditional metrics have not been fully explored.

We address this gap leveraging Retraction Watch, the most extensive data set on retractions and link it to Microsoft Academic Graph, a comprehensive data set of scientific publications and their citation networks, and Altmetric that monitors online attention to scientific output. Our investigation focuses on: 1) the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following retraction, and 2) the evolution of collaboration networks among authors who continue publishing after retraction.

Our empirical analysis reveals that retracted authors, particularly those with less experience, tend to leave scientific publishing in the aftermath of retraction, particularly if their retractions attract widespread attention.

Furthermore, we uncover a pattern whereby retracted authors who remain active in publishing tend to maintain and establish more collaborations compared to their similar non-retracted counterparts.

Taken together, notwithstanding the indispensable role of retractions in upholding the integrity of the academic community, our findings shed light on the disproportionate impact that retractions impose on early-career researchers as opposed to those with more established careers.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06710

Catégories
EN

How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer

Authors : José-Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós

The aim of this article is to explore the editorial response of journals to research articles that may contain methodological errors or misconduct. A total of 17,244 articles commented on in PubPeer, a post-publication peer review site, were processed and classified according to several error and fraud categories.

Then, the editorial response (i.e., editorial notices) to these papers were retrieved from PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and PubMed to obtain the most comprehensive picture. The results show that only 21.5% of the articles that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the journal. This percentage would climb to 34% for 2019 publications.

This response is different between journals, but cross-sectional across all disciplines. Another interesting result is that high-impact journals suffer more from image manipulations, while plagiarism is more frequent in low-impact journals.

The study concludes with the observation that the journals have to improve their response to problematic articles.

URL : How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.ene.18