Elizabeth G King1, Ivan Oransky2, Teviah E Sachs1, Alik Farber1, David B Flynn3, Alison Abritis4, Jeffrey A Kalish1, Jeffrey J Siracuse5. 1. Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 2. The Center for Scientific Integrity, New York University, Arthur L. Carter Institute, New York, NY, USA. 3. Alumni Medical Library, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 4. The Center for Scientific Integrity, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Jeffrey.Siracuse@bmc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers. METHODS: NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms "surgery," "surg," or "surgical" and "retracted" or "retraction." Article details were recorded. RESULTS: There were 184 retracted surgical articles identified from 1991 through 2015. Average retraction time was 3.6 years. General (26%), Cardiac (22%), and Orthopedic (10%) surgery were most common. Reasons for retraction were duplication (35.3%), Institutional Review Board violations (18.5%), falsified data (14.7%), data errors (9.8%), author dispute (8.2%), plagiarism (7.6%), copyright violations (2.2%), financial disclosure violations (0.5%), and consent (0.5%). No reason for retraction was given in 8.7% of cases. Median IF was higher for administrative than content-related retraction reasons (3.0 vs. 2.0, P < 0.01). A paywall, requiring a subscription to read, restricted access to 23.4% of retraction notices. CONCLUSIONS: Article retractions occur across all fields of surgery for various reasons, both administrative and content-related. The majority of surgical retraction notices have a reason for retraction listed and do not require payment to read.
BACKGROUND: Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers. METHODS: NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms "surgery," "surg," or "surgical" and "retracted" or "retraction." Article details were recorded. RESULTS: There were 184 retracted surgical articles identified from 1991 through 2015. Average retraction time was 3.6 years. General (26%), Cardiac (22%), and Orthopedic (10%) surgery were most common. Reasons for retraction were duplication (35.3%), Institutional Review Board violations (18.5%), falsified data (14.7%), data errors (9.8%), author dispute (8.2%), plagiarism (7.6%), copyright violations (2.2%), financial disclosure violations (0.5%), and consent (0.5%). No reason for retraction was given in 8.7% of cases. Median IF was higher for administrative than content-related retraction reasons (3.0 vs. 2.0, P < 0.01). A paywall, requiring a subscription to read, restricted access to 23.4% of retraction notices. CONCLUSIONS: Article retractions occur across all fields of surgery for various reasons, both administrative and content-related. The majority of surgical retraction notices have a reason for retraction listed and do not require payment to read.
Authors: Elena Pastor-Ramón; Ivan Herrera-Peco; Oskia Agirre; María García-Puente; José María Morán Journal: Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ Date: 2022-05-04