Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors.
Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS Biology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1825206792400928768 |
|---|---|
| author | John P A Ioannidis Angelo Maria Pezzullo Antonio Cristiano Stefania Boccia Jeroen Baas |
| author_facet | John P A Ioannidis Angelo Maria Pezzullo Antonio Cristiano Stefania Boccia Jeroen Baas |
| author_sort | John P A Ioannidis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based database of highly cited scientists (top 2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator). Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually, 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least 1 retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%), and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-68a0f192d0cb4753a6cbd382f4990617 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1544-9173 1545-7885 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS Biology |
| spelling | doaj-art-68a0f192d0cb4753a6cbd382f49906172025-02-07T05:30:17ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Biology1544-91731545-78852025-01-01231e300299910.1371/journal.pbio.3002999Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors.John P A IoannidisAngelo Maria PezzulloAntonio CristianoStefania BocciaJeroen BaasRetractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based database of highly cited scientists (top 2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator). Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually, 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least 1 retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%), and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999 |
| spellingShingle | John P A Ioannidis Angelo Maria Pezzullo Antonio Cristiano Stefania Boccia Jeroen Baas Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. PLoS Biology |
| title | Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. |
| title_full | Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. |
| title_fullStr | Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. |
| title_short | Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. |
| title_sort | linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johnpaioannidis linkingcitationandretractiondatarevealsthedemographicsofscientificretractionsamonghighlycitedauthors AT angelomariapezzullo linkingcitationandretractiondatarevealsthedemographicsofscientificretractionsamonghighlycitedauthors AT antoniocristiano linkingcitationandretractiondatarevealsthedemographicsofscientificretractionsamonghighlycitedauthors AT stefaniaboccia linkingcitationandretractiondatarevealsthedemographicsofscientificretractionsamonghighlycitedauthors AT jeroenbaas linkingcitationandretractiondatarevealsthedemographicsofscientificretractionsamonghighlycitedauthors |