Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28683764›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry.

Túlio Eduardo Nogueira, Andréia Souza Gonçalves, Cláudio Rodrigues Leles, Aline Carvalho Batista, Luciane Rezende Costa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022
    Article
  7. Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Túlio Eduardo NogueiraSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitária, s/n. Setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, CEP 74605-220, Brazil.
Andréia Souza GonçalvesSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitária, s/n. Setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, CEP 74605-220, Brazil.
Cláudio Rodrigues LelesSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitária, s/n. Setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, CEP 74605-220, Brazil.
Aline Carvalho BatistaSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitária, s/n. Setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, CEP 74605-220, Brazil.
Luciane Rezende CostaSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitária, s/n. Setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, CEP 74605-220, Brazil. lsucasas@ufg.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7637-0049

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublication retraction is a mechanism to preserve the scientific literature against publications that contain seriously flawed or erroneous data, redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, and other features that compromise the integrity of science. An increase in the occurrence of retractions in recent years has been reported. Nevertheless, there is scarce information on this topic concerning publications in dentistry and related specialties. Thus, this study aimed to investigate retracted papers published in dental journals.

methodsData collection included an exploratory search in PubMed and a specific search in SCImago Journal Rank indexed journals, complemented by the cases reported on the Retraction Watch website and in PubMed. All 167 dental journals included in SCImago were searched for identification of retracted articles up to March 2016. The selected retracted articles and their corresponding retraction notices were recorded and assessed for classification according to the reason for retraction and other additional information.

resultsForty of the 167 journals scrutinised at SCImago (23.9%) had at least one retracted article, and four additional journals were identified from the Retraction Watch website. A total of 72 retracted found were retracted for the reasons: redundant publication (20.8%), plagiarism (18.1%), misconduct (13.8%), overlap (13.6%) and honest error (9.7%). Higher number of retractions were reported in those journals with cites/doc <2.0-n = 49 (74.2%). The types of studies were mainly laboratory studies (34.7%), case reports (22.2%) and review articles (13.9%).

conclusionsThe approach to ethical problems in papers published in dental scientific journals is still incipient; retractions were mostly due to the authors' malpractice and were more frequently related to journals with less impact.

Indexed as

Retraction of Publication as TopicBiomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicDentistryHumansPeriodicals as TopicBioethicsDentistryDuplicate publicationEthicsPlagiarismRetracted articlesRetracted publicationRetraction of publicationScientific fraudsScientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID28683764
PMCPMC5500970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.