ArticleRevista de saude publica2025
Characteristics of retracted biomedical research papers from Latin American institutions.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo characterize retractions of biomedical research papers that had a least one author affiliated with a Latin American (LATAM) institution.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of retracted research papers published in scientific journals focusing on the field of biomedical research and identified by means of the Retraction Watch database. The retracted articles identified were required to have at least one author whose institutional affiliation was in a LATAM country. Data were collected on the authors' countries and institutional affiliations, the reason for retraction, dates of publication and retraction, indexing, journal quartile and impact factor. Reasons for retraction were categorized into three major groups, i.e., scientific misconduct, error, and not specified.
resultsAccording to Retraction Watch, 181 papers were retracted across 1987-2024 which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina were the countries that had a retraction rate above 1 per 10 thousand papers throughout the study period. The principal reason for retraction was scientific misconduct (63.0%) followed by honest error (21.5%). The main causes of retraction due to scientific misconduct were ethical and legal problems (33.1%), followed by fabrication/falsification (20.2%).
conclusionThe number of retractions in some LATAM countries, mainly due to scientific misconduct, highlights the need to strengthen ethical practices in research. Future initiatives should focus on developing and evaluating effective strategies to prevent misconduct and promote scientific integrity.
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.