↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s151745
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guowei Li, Mariam Kamel, Yanling Jin, Michael Kuan Xu, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Zainab Samaan, Mitchell AH Levine, Lehana Thabane

Abstract

Article retraction is a measure taken by journals or authors where there is evidence of research misconduct or error, redundancy, plagiarism or unethical research. Recently, the retraction of scientific publications has been on the rise. In this survey, we aimed to describe the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. We searched retracted articles on the PubMed database and Retraction Watch website from 1980 to February 2016. The primary outcomes were the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. The secondary outcomes included how article retractions were handled by journals and how to improve the journal practices toward article retractions. We included 1,339 retracted articles. Most retracted articles had six authors or fewer. Article retraction was most common in the USA (26%), Japan (11%) and Germany (10%). The main reasons for article retraction were misconduct (51%, n = 685) and error (14%, n = 193). There were 66% (n = 889) of retracted articles having male senior or corresponding authors. Of the articles retracted after August 2010, 63% (n = 567) retractions were reported on Retraction Watch. Large discrepancies were observed in the ways that different journals handled article retractions. For instance, articles were completely withdrawn from some journals, while in others, articles were still available with no indication of retraction. Likewise, some retraction notices included a detailed account of the events that led to article retraction, while others only consisted of a statement indicating the article retraction. The characteristics, geographic distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants were examined in this survey. More efforts are needed to improve the consistency and transparency of journal practices toward article retractions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 4 8%
Librarian 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,058,887
of 25,769,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#69
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,435
of 453,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,769,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.