Abstract
AbstractIn this study, the coverage and overlap of retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawals are compared across seven significant scholarly databases, with the aim to check for discrepancies, pinpoint the causes of those discrepancies, and choose the best product to produce the most accurate picture of retracted literature. Seven scholarly databases were searched to obtain all the retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawal from 2000. Only web search interfaces were used, excepting in OpenAlex and Scilit. The findings demonstrate that non-selective databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (PubMed, Scopus, and WoS). The key factors explaining these discrepancies are the indexation of withdrawals and proceeding articles. Additionally, the high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens. 99% of the sample is jointly covered by OpenAlex, Scilit and WoS. The study suggests that research on retracted literature would require querying more than one source and that it should be advisable to accurately identify and label this literature in academic databases.
Funder
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Aspura, M. Y. I., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115(3), 1315–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2720-z
2. Barber, M. (2021). Strengthening research integrity: The role and responsibilities of publishing. ISC Occasional paper. Retrieved June 21, 2023 https://council.science/publications/strengthening-research-integrity/
3. Bik, E. M., Fang, F. C., Kullas, A. L., Davis, R. J., & Casadevall, A. (2018). Analysis and correction of inappropriate image duplication: The molecular and cellular biology experience. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 38(20), e00309-e318. https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.00309-18
4. Bolland, M. J., Grey, A., & Avenell, A. (2022). Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1886933
5. Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 280(3), 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296