Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38013646›Full record

ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2023

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.

Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Alikhan Zhaksylyk, Ahmet Akyol, Marlen Yessirkepov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025
    Article
  7. Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors.

Burhan Fatih KocyigitDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Adana Health Practice and Research Center, Adana, Turkey. bfk2701@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6065-8002
Alikhan ZhaksylykDepartment of Scientific and Clinical Work, Doctoral and Master's Studies, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6679-323X
Ahmet AkyolPhysiotherapy and Rehabilitation Application and Research Center, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8953-5196
Marlen YessirkepovDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2511-6918

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

methodsUtilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

resultsFollowing the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

conclusionThe vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchScientific MisconductCross-Sectional StudiesHumansKazakhstanPeer ReviewPlagiarismPublicationsEthicsKazakhstanPeer ReviewPlagiarismPublicationsRetraction of PublicationScientific Misconduct

Identifiers

PMID38013646
PMCPMC10681843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.