Analysis of Indian Retracted Publications: A Study Based on Scopus Data

ABSTRACT

Retracted publications are the scholarly articles that have been withdrawn from publication by authors or journals due to errors, misconduct, or ethical concerns. The present study aims to identify and analyse retracted papers by Indian authors. The data was extracted from the Scopus and also checked from the Retraction Watch database along with the journal's website. The extracted data was analysed using MS Excel, Jamovi, and SPSS-21. The study examined the year-wise retraction rate, reasons for retraction, authorship patterns, time lag for retraction, and impact on citations after retraction. The results showed that while the number of retracted publications per year increased over time, the rate of retraction per 10K publications remained constant. Duplicate publication and plagiarism were the most common reasons for retraction. Approximately one-third of the publications were retracted within six months, and the retraction time decreased over the years, especially in open-access journals. The average number of citations per paper per year before and after retraction were nearly similar. This study could assist librarians and researchers in understanding retractions, avoiding their use, and being cautious when referencing them.

KEYWORDS:

• Retraction
• retracted publications
• publishing misconducts
• plagiarism
• research integrity
• retraction time

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Bhumika Bhatt, “A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences,” Scientometrics 126, no. 5 (2021): 4039–54, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03907-0; Daniele Fanelli, “Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data,” Edited by Enrico Scalas. PLoS One 5, no. 4 (2010): e10271, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.

2. Zafar Ali and Asif Ali, “Violation of Publication Ethics: A Growing Concern for Journal Editors,” Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute 31, no. 4 (2017): 333–35; Amit Kumar, Anil Kumar Siwach, and Poornima Devi, “Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Papers on Predatory Publishing,” Science & Technology Libraries (2023): 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262x.2023.2200224.

3. M. K. Aspura, Yanti Idaya, A. Noorhidawati, and A. Abrizah. “An Analysis of Malaysian Retracted Papers: Misconduct or Mistakes?” Scientometrics 115, no. 3 (2018): 1315–28, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2720-z.

4. Manorama Tripathi, Sharad Kumar Sonkar, and Sunil Kumar, “A Cross Sectional Study of Retraction Notices of Scholarly Journals of Science,” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 39, no. 2 (2019): 74–81, https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.14000.

5. Jeffrey L. Furman, Kyle Jensen, and Fiona Murray, “Governing Knowledge in the Scientific Community: Exploring the Role of Retractions in Biomedicine,” Research Policy 41, no. 2 (2012): 276–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.11.001.

6. Ali and Ali, “Violation of Publication Ethics.”

7. Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall, “Retracted Science and the Retraction Index,” Edited by R. P. Morrison. Infection and Immunity 79, no. 10 (2011): 3855–59, https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.05661-11.

8. Subramani Parasuraman, Ramasamy Raveendran, and K. K. Mueen Ahmed, “Violation of Publication Ethics in Manuscripts: Analysis and Perspectives,” Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics 6, no. 2 (2015): 94–97, https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500x.155487.

9. Laura M. Chambers, Chad M. Michener, and Tommaso Falcone, “Authors’ Reply Re: Plagiarism and Data Falsification Are the Most Common Reasons for Retracted Publications in Obstetrics and Gynaecology,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126, no. 10 (2019): 1289–90, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15828; Bakthavachalam Elango, Marcin Kozak, and Periyaswamy Rajendran, “Analysis of Retractions in Indian Science,” Scientometrics 119, no. 2 (2019): 1081–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y.

10. Elisabeth M. Bik, Ferric C. Fang, Amy L. Kullas, Roger J. Davis, and Arturo Casadevall, “Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: The Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience,” Molecular and Cellular Biology 38, no. 20 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.00309-18.

11. Bakthavachalam Elango, “Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature from Indian Authors,” Scientometrics 126, no. 5 (2021): 3965–81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03895-1.

12. Ali and Ali, “Violation of Publication Ethics.”

13. Parasuraman et al., “Violation of Publication Ethics in Manuscripts”; Ferric C. Fang, R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall, “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 42 (2012): 17028–33, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

14. R. Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric C. Fang, “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” Edited by Gemma Elizabeth Derrick. PLoS One 8, no. 7 (2013): e68397, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.

15. See note 11 above.

16. See note 3 above.

17. Daniele Fanelli, “Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign,” PLoS Medicine 10, no. 12 (2013): e1001563, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.

18. Fang et al., “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications.”

19. See note 3 above.

20. Sun Huh, Soo Young Kim, and Hye-Min Cho, “Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis,” Edited by Xu-jie Zhou. PLoS One 11, no. 10 (2016): e0163588, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163588.

21. Lei Lei and Ying Zhang, “Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016),” Science and Engineering Ethics 24, no. 5 (2017): 1409–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7.

22. See note 3 above.

23. Ali Ghorbi, Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh, Erfan Ghaderi-Azad, Marcel Ausloos, and Marcin Kozak, “Retracted Papers by Iranian Authors: Causes, Journals, Time Lags, Affiliations, Collaborations,” Scientometrics 126, no. 9 (2021): 7351–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04104-9.

24. Bhatt, “A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences”; Li Tang, Guangyuan Hu, Yang Sui, Yuhan Yang, and Cong Cao, “Retraction: The ‘Other Face’ of Research Collaboration?” Science and Engineering Ethics 26, no. 3 (2020): 1681–708, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1; Elango, “Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature.”

25. Behzad Ataie-Ashtiani, “World Map of Scientific Misconduct,” Science and Engineering Ethics 24, no. 5 (2017): 1653–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6.

26. See note 4 above.

27. Antonio Rapani, Teresa Lombardi, Federico Berton, Veronica Del Lupo, Roberto Di Lenarda, and Claudio Stacchi, “Retracted Publications and Their Citation in Dental Literature: A Systematic Review,” Clinical and Experimental Dental Research 6, no. 4 (2020): 383–90, https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.292.

28. Elango et al., “Analysis of Retractions in Indian Science.”

29. Bhatt, “A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences.”

30. See note 4 above.

31. Tariq Ahmad Shah, Sumeer Gul, Saimah Bashir, Suhail Ahmad, Assumpció Huertas, Andrea Oliveira, Farzana Gulzar, Ashaq Hussain Najar, and Kanu Chakraborty, “Influence of Accessibility (Open and Toll-Based) of Scholarly Publications on Retractions,” Scientometrics 126, no. 6 (2021): 4589–606, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03990-3; Amit Kumar and Anil Kumar Siwach, “Analysis of Retracted Publications by Indian Authors due to Falsification or Fabrication of Data,” Kelpro Bulletin 27, no. 2 (2023): 29–44.

32. Shah et al., “Influence of Accessibility (Open and Toll-Based) of Scholarly Publications on Retractions.”

33. Ishfaq Ahmad Palla, Mangkhollen Singson, and S. Thiyagarajan, “A Comparative Analysis of Retracted Papers in Health Sciences from China and India,” Accountability in Research 27, no. 7 (2020): 401–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1754804.

34. Qin Zhang and Hui-Zhen Fu, “Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine,” Scientometrics 127, no. 4 (2022): 1883–901, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y.

35. See note 4 above.

36. Qin Zhang, Juneman Abraham, and Hui-Zhen Fu, “Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications during 1978–2017,” Scientometrics 125, no. 1 (2020): 213–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w; Kumar and Siwach, “Analysis of Retracted Publications by Indian Authors due to Falsification or Fabrication of Data.”

37. Aspura et al., “An Analysis of Malaysian Retracted Papers”; Ghorbi et al., “Retracted Papers by Iranian Authors.”

38. See note 4 above.

39. See note 11 above.

40. Bhatt, “A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences.”

41. See note 11 above.

42. See note 3 above.

43. See note 23 above.

44. Shah et al., “Influence of Accessibility (Open and Toll-Based) of Scholarly Publications on Retractions.”

45. See note 11 above.

46. See note 23 above.

47. See note 4 above.

48. See note 3 above.

49. Michael Lesk, Janice Bially Mattern, and Heather Moulaison Sandy, “Are Papers with Open Data More Credible? An Analysis of Open Data Availability in Retracted PLoS Articles,” Information in Contemporary Society (2019): 154–61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_14.

50. See note 14 above.

51. Bhatt, “A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences.”

52. Kumar and Siwach, “Analysis of Retracted Publications by Indian Authors due to Falsification or Fabrication of Data.”

53. See note 4 above.

54. Ghorbi et al., “Retracted Papers by Iranian Authors”; Aspura, “An Analysis of Malaysian Retracted Papers.”

55. Lesk et al., “Are Papers with Open Data More Credible? An Analysis of Open Data Availability in Retracted PLoS Articles.”