IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i12d10.1007_s11192-023-04850-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retractions in primary care journals (2000–2022)

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Sebo

    (University of Geneva)

Abstract

No study has so far examined retractions in primary care. Our aim was to assess the number/proportion of retracted articles in primary care journals and describe their main characteristics. For comparison, we also calculated the number/proportion of retractions for general internal medicine journals and for all PubMed articles. We selected the eighteen primary care journals with Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor in 2021. We retrieved all PubMed articles published in these journals between January 2000 and December 2022 that were retracted. We calculated the proportion of retractions by dividing the number of retractions by the number of PubMed articles published in these journals during the same period. We also calculated the proportion of retractions for (i) all PubMed articles published in the 117 general internal medicine journals with a JCR impact factor > 2 in 2021 and (ii) all PubMed articles. We found seven retractions among the 52,453 PubMed articles published in the eighteen primary care journals. The proportion of retractions (= 0.013%) was about two times lower than for articles published in internal medicine journals (= 0.028%) and about four times lower than for all PubMed articles (= 0.056%). Four articles were retracted for misconduct, two for unintentional errors and one for another reason. Although it may be explained by a particularly high level of scientific rigour and integrity among primary care researchers, the low number of retractions in primary care journals raises questions about the effectiveness of retraction measures in these journals.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Sebo, 2023. "Retractions in primary care journals (2000–2022)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6739-6760, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04850-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04850-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04850-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04850-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Caroline Lievore & Priscila Rubbo & Celso Biynkievycz Santos & Claudia Tânia Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti, 2021. "Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6871-6889, August.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0044118 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    6. 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.
    7. N. Siva & P. Rajendran, 2023. "Retracted publications in BRICS countries: an analytical study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6313-6333, December.
    8. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar & Ahmed Maher Khafaga Shehata, 2023. "A bibliometric study of article retractions in technology fields in developing economies countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6047-6083, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2017. "Highly cited retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1653-1661, March.
    13. 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.
    14. repec:osf:osfxxx:b4sma_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Tatiane Teixeira & Claudia Tania Picinin, 2024. "University Rankings: Proposal for a Future Research Agenda through a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-35, April.
    16. Makna Ani Marlia & Rahmi Fahmy & Hendra Lukito & Donard Games, 2025. "An Exploratory Study on Effective Leadership and Change Management in the Transformation of Indonesian Public Universities Towards World-Class University Status," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-40, February.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2023. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh, Center for Open Science.
    20. Valérie Mignon & Marc Joëts, 2025. "Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers?," Working Papers hal-04940088, HAL.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04850-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.