Abstract
AbstractThe aim was to describe biomedical retractions and analyse those retracted in 2000–2021 due to research misconduct among authors affiliated with European institutions. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports and PubMed as data sources. Biomedical original papers, reviews, case reports and letters with at least one author affiliated with an European institution retracted between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2021 were included. We characterized rates over time and conducted an analysis on the 4 countries with the highest number of retractions: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 2069 publications were identified. Retraction rates increased from 10.7 to 44.8 per 100,000 publications between 2000 and 2020. Research misconduct accounted for most retractions (66.8%). The reasons for misconduct-related retractions shifted over time, ranging from problems of copyright and authorship in 2000 (2.5 per 100,000 publications) to duplication in 2020 (8.6 per 100,000 publications). In 2020, the main reason was fabrication and falsification in the United Kingdom (6.2 per 100,000 publications) and duplication in Spain (13.2 per 100,000 publications).Retractions of papers by authors affiliated with European institutions are increasing and are primarily due to research misconduct. The type of misconduct has changed over time and differ between European countries.
Funder
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. ALLEA. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. (2023). https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/European-Code-of-Conduct-Revised-Edition-2023.pdf
2. Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005
3. Asplund, K. (2019). [New Swedish legislation on research misconduct from 2020]. Lakartidningen, 116. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31846052 (Oredlighet i forskning - regleras i lag fran arsskiftet - Lagen okar rattssakerheten men tacker inte alla omoraliska beteenden i forskningen.)
4. Aubert Bonn, N., Godecharle, S., & Dierickx, K. (2017). European Universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616688980
5. Bordewijk, E. M., Li, W., van Eekelen, R., Wang, R., Showell, M., Mol, B. W., & van Wely, M. (2021). Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 136, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献