ArticleJournal of traditional and complementary medicine2014
A comprehensive analysis of articles retracted between 2004 and 2013 from biomedical literature - a call for reforms.
Article in Journal of traditional and complementary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Pooled it
- Reasons for Retraction of Biomedical Articles Written by Eastern Mediterranean and Turkish Authors; A Comprehensive Cross-Sectional Study During 2010-2019 : Short title: Reasons for Retraction of Biomedical Articles.Galen medical journal · 2026Article
- A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis.Archives of physiotherapy · 2020Review
- Article
- Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications.Biochemia medica · 2019Article
- A survey of retracted articles in dentistry.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- The reproducibility of biomedical research: Sleepers awake!Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2014Review
- Plagiarism's Poison: Avoiding Scientific Misconduct.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncologyReview
- Scientific misconduct: our first (known) case.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science is a dynamic subject and it was never free of misconduct or bad research. Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and misdeeds. So, we aimed to assess various factors associated with retraction of scientific articles from 2004 to 2013. Data were retrieved from PubMed and Medline using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in April 2014 to detect articles retracted from 2004 to 2013. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test and Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results showed that a total of 2343 articles were retracted between 2004 and 2013, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. Time interval between submission and retraction of article has reduced in recent times. Impact factor and retraction do not have any significant correlation. We conclude that although retraction of articles is a rare event, its constant rise in scientific literature is quite worrisome. It is still unclear whether misconduct/mistakes in articles are increasing hastily or the articles are retracted at a rapid rate in recent times. So, it should be considered as an urgent issue and it is the responsibility of journal editors to track misconduct by following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and making an effective strategy.
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.