IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i3p29-d889730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh

    (Research Compliance and Integrity Office, National University of Singapore, Lee Kong Chian Wing, #05-02, 21 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119077, Singapore)

  • Bor Luen Tang

    (Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, National University of Singapore, 8 Medical Drive, Singapore 117596, Singapore)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to all human endeavors, and scientific research has not been spared. We queried how the retraction of publications might have been affected during the pandemic years 2020–2021. Searches performed with Retraction Watch Database (RWD) revealed that the total number of retractions (as proxied by retraction-related notices) rose steadily from 2013 into the pandemic years 2020–2021. Interestingly, while retractions in the physical and social sciences tapered during 2020–2021, those of the basic life sciences and health sciences showed robust increases in 2020, with the former maintaining a steep rise in 2021. This rise in retractions belied a tapering of total relevant publications in the same year and is confirmed with a complementary search strategy in Scopus. The retraction rate in the medical sciences, particularly those relating to infectious disease, is clearly affected by the anomalous high retraction rate of COVID-19-related papers. However, the sustained increase in the retraction rate of the basic life sciences papers, could be due, at least partly, to retraction spikes in several journals. The rise in retractions in the life and medical sciences could be attributed to heightened post-publication peer review of papers in online platforms such as PubPeer, where numerous problematic papers have been revealed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh & Bor Luen Tang, 2022. "Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:29-:d:889730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/3/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/3/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Shen, 2020. "Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers," Nature, Nature, vol. 581(7807), pages 132-136, May.
    2. Holly Else, 2021. "Scientific image sleuth faces legal action for criticizing research papers," Nature, Nature, vol. 594(7861), pages 17-18, June.
    3. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Andrew R. Casey & Ilya Mandel & Prasun K. Ray, 2021. "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity," Papers 2109.06591, arXiv.org.
    5. Holly Else, 2021. "Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published," Nature, Nature, vol. 599(7885), pages 361-361, November.
    6. Richard Van Noorden, 2021. "Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature," Nature, Nature, vol. 594(7862), pages 160-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walter R. Schumm & Duane W. Crawford & Lorenza Lockett & Asma bin Ateeq & Abdullah AlRashed, 2023. "Can Retracted Social Science Articles Be Distinguished from Non-Retracted Articles by Some of the Same Authors, Using Benford’s Law or Other Statistical Methods?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruhua Huang & Yuting Huang & Fan Qi & Leyi Shi & Baiyang Li & Wei Yu, 2022. "Exploring the characteristics of special issues: distribution, topicality, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5233-5256, September.
    2. Le, Tam-Tri & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2022. "Tra cứu nhanh về hai chủ đề quan trọng với học giới," OSF Preprints b4sma, Center for Open Science.
    3. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    4. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    5. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    6. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    7. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    8. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    9. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    10. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2017. "Highly cited retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1653-1661, March.
    11. Wei Chen & Qin-Rui Xing & Hui Wang & Tao Wang, 2018. "Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 217-227, January.
    12. María Núñez-Núñez & Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Javier Zamora & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2023. "Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    13. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & Murad Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 549-569, May.
    14. Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2023. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh, Center for Open Science.
    15. Shenghui Li & Wenyan Xu & Jingqi Yin, 2023. "Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3805-3826, July.
    16. Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu & Guangwei Hu, 2018. "Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    18. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    19. Brian Garrod, 2022. "Reviewing an Paper for Tourism and Hospitality —A Peep behind the Curtain," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-9, October.
    20. Judit Dobránszki & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2019. "Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 387-398, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:29-:d:889730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.