SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.33 número4Salud del cuidador: adaptación y validación del cuestionario Experience of Caregiving Inventory (ECI) en población españolaAnálisis de los problemas relacionados con los medicamentos en un hospital de tercer nivel de Barcelona índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Gaceta Sanitaria

versión impresa ISSN 0213-9111

Resumen

CAMPOS-VARELA, Isabel  y  RUANO-RAVINA, Alberto. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac Sanit [online]. 2019, vol.33, n.4, pp.356-360.  Epub 02-Dic-2019. ISSN 0213-9111.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009.

Objective

To analyze the causes of retracted publications and the main characteristics of their authors.

Method

A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed including all retracted publications from January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2016 indexed in PubMed. The causes of retraction were classified as: data management, authorship issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other causes, and unknown reasons. Then, misbehaviour was classified as misconduct, suspicion of misconduct or no misconduct suspicion.

Results

1,082 retracted publications were identified. The retraction rate for the period was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. The main cause of retraction was misconduct (65.3%), and the leading reasons were plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. The highest proportion of retracted publications corresponded to Iran (15.52 per 10,000), followed by Egypt and China (11.75 and 8.26 per 10,000).

Conclusions

Currently, misconduct is the main cause of retraction. Specific strategies to limit this phenomenon must be implemented. It would be useful to standardize reasons and procedures for retraction. The development of a standard retraction form to be permanently indexed in a database might be relevant.

Palabras clave : Plagiarism; Peer review; Authorship; Fraud; Scientific misconduct.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )