Deculllier Evelyne, Maisonneuve Hervé
Pôle IMER, Unité de Recherche Clinique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Jul 17;11(1):490. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3576-2.
To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices.
From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction.
分析2016年的撤稿通知，并将其质量与2008年的通知进行比较。
在检索到的146份撤稿通知中，仅纳入123份，其中122份（99.2%）有明确的撤稿原因，1份（0.8%）未给出原因。撤稿的主要原因包括错误（26.0%，n = 32）、欺诈（26.0%，n = 32）、抄袭（20.3%，n = 25）和重复发表（8.1%，n = 10）。100份（81.3%）病例的原始论文中有撤稿说明，15份（12.2%）未提及撤稿，8份（6.5%）论文已被删除。与之前的队列相比，撤稿管理有所改善，因为99.2%给出了明确原因，81.3%的原始文章有撤稿说明。
