Epidemiology Unit, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, (IIS-FJD, UAM), Madrid, Spain.
Department of Genetics and Genomics, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, (IIS-FJD, UAM), Madrid, Spain.
Account Res. 2021 Jul;28(5):280-296. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479. Epub 2020 Oct 30.
We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.
我们旨在量化因研究不端行为而被撤回的遗传学文章在撤回前后获得的引用数量。评估了 1970 年至 2016 年期间在 Retraction Watch 数据库中可获得的所有与遗传学文章相关的撤回通知。撤回的原因是捏造/伪造和抄袭。终点是撤回文章的引用数量，以及期刊何时以及如何报告撤回情况，以及这些信息是否在 PubMed 上发布。460 篇被撤回的遗传学文章被引用了 34487 次；7945 次（23%）是撤回后的引用。撤回的中位时间和最后一次引用的时间分别为 3.2 年和 3 年。大多数（96%）文章都有 PubMed 的撤回通知，有 1%的文章完全从期刊网站上删除，4%的文章在线或 PDF 版本都没有相关信息。90%的引文来自因伪造/捏造而被撤回的文章。在抄袭的情况下，撤回后的引用比例（42%）明显高于伪造/捏造（21.5%）（p<0.001）。抄袭的撤回中位时间（1.3 年）比伪造/捏造的（4.8 年）短（p<0.001）。在伪造/捏造的情况下，撤回在 PDF 中（70%）的报道频率高于抄袭（43%）（p<0.001）。伪造/捏造的撤稿论文中，美国作者的比例最高，抄袭的撤稿论文中，中国作者的比例最高。尽管大多数撤稿都得到了期刊的妥善处理，但最严重的问题是，因伪造/捏造而被撤回的文章的撤回中位时间接近 5 年，获得了近 6800 次撤回后的引用。期刊应实施加快撤稿进程的措施，以尽量减少撤回后的引用。
