Ioannidis John P A, Pezzullo Angelo Maria, Cristiano Antonio, Boccia Stefania, Baas Jeroen
Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
PLoS Biol. 2025 Jan 30;23(1):e3002999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based database of highly cited scientists (top 2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator). Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually, 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least 1 retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%), and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.
撤稿现象日益普遍，但在已发表论文中仍占少数。建立数据库将撤稿情况与每位科学家的影响力指标相联系会很有帮助。因此，我们在一个基于Scopus的最新高被引科学家数据库（根据综合引用指标，在每个科学子领域中排名前2%）中纳入了撤稿数据。利用来自撤稿观察数据库（RWDB）的数据，将撤稿记录与Scopus引用数据相链接。截至2024年8月15日，在RWDB的55237条记录中，我们排除了非撤稿记录、明显并非因任何作者错误导致的撤稿记录、论文已重新发表的撤稿记录以及无法与Scopus记录相链接的记录。最终，39468条符合条件的撤稿记录与Scopus相链接。在217097名具有长期影响力的高被引科学家和223152名单年（2023年）影响力高被引科学家中，分别有7083人（3.3%）和8747人（4.0%）至少有1条撤稿记录。有撤稿论文的科学家与没有撤稿论文的科学家相比，发表年龄更小，自引率更高，发表量更大。撤稿在生命科学领域更为常见，而在其他几个学科中则很少见或不存在。在一些发展中国家，高被引科学家中撤稿的比例非常高（在长期引用影响力排名中，塞内加尔最高（66.7%），厄瓜多尔（28.6%）和巴基斯坦（27.8%））。不同领域和国家撤稿率的差异表明研究实践、审查和撤稿难易程度存在差异。加入撤稿数据提高了高被引科学家档案的粒度，有助于进行负责任的研究评估。然而，在解读撤稿时需要谨慎，因为撤稿并不总是意味着不当行为；逐案进行进一步分析至关重要。该数据库有望为元研究提供资源，并对科学实践有更深入的了解。
