ArticleCroatian medical journal2014
Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Retraction Analysis in Social Media Research: A Scopus Based Data From 2011 to 2025.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Statistical Competence and Editorial Policies in Biomedical Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Ethics statements in Rheumatology journals: present practices and future directions.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Reproducibility and rigor in rheumatology research.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Lessons Learned from Publicizing and Retracting an Erroneous Hypothesis on the Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) Vaccination with Unethical Implications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Error publication (published erratum) in neurosurgical journals worldwide using PubMed during the last 30 years.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Article
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Review
- Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze mistakes and misconduct in multidisciplinary and specialized biomedical journals.
methodsWe conducted searches through PubMed to retrieve errata, duplicate, and retracted publications (as of January 30, 2014). To analyze publication activity and citation profiles of countries, multidisciplinary, and specialized biomedical journals, we referred to the latest data from the SCImago Journal and Country Rank database. Total number of indexed articles and values of the h-index of the fifty most productive countries and multidisciplinary journals were recorded and linked to the number of duplicate and retracted publications in PubMed.
resultsOur analysis found 2597 correction items. A striking increase in the number of corrections appeared in 2013, which is mainly due to 871 (85.3%) corrections from PLOS One. The number of duplicate publications was 1086. Articles frequently published in duplicate were reviews (15.6%), original studies (12.6%), and case reports (7.6%), whereas top three retracted articles were original studies (10.1%), randomized trials (8.8%), and reviews (7%). A strong association existed between the total number of publications across countries and duplicate (rs=0.86, P<0.0001) and retracted items (rs=0.812, P<0.0001). A similar trend was found between country-based h-index values and duplicate and retracted publications.
conclusionThe study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information. Digitization and open access confound the staggering increase in correction notices and retractions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.