好色先生

好色先生

Explore the latest content from across our publications

Log In

Forgot Password?
Create New Account

Loading... please wait

Abstract Details

Retractions and Withdrawals in Neurology Literature: A 2020 Analysis of the Retraction Watch Database
Practice, Policy, and Ethics
Practice, Policy, and Ethics Posters (7:00 AM-5:00 PM)
013

To investigate journal article retractions and withdrawals in neurology literature, and determine temporal and geographic trends.

Journal article retractions are a growing problem in all fields of medicine. Prior works have investigated retractions in plastic surgery, neurosurgery, cardiology, and a few other fields. However, no such work has been done in neurology.

We searched the Retraction Watch database for articles in the field of neurology that had been retracted till July 2020. We extracted the data, and investigated trends in year of retraction, country of origin, article type and reasons for retraction, amongst others.

We obtained 566 eligible articles. The number of retractions has been rising rapidly in recent years, with merely 16.9% of all retractions till 2010 and 56% within 2016-2020. Retractions were highest from United States (28.8%), followed by China (22.4%) and Japan (16.3%). Original research articles were the most common type (74%), followed by review articles (9%). With 18 retractions, the journal Neurology had the highest number. Only 23% of articles were retracted due to ‘plagiarism’ (23%), with majority of others retracted due to various types of research misconduct. However, the median (IQR) time to retraction after publication was 1.45 (3.08) years, resulting in some articles continuing to generate citations for a significant time before a notice of retraction gets attached.

In neurology, retractions continue to form a growing but small part of the literature. However, the recent rate of their increase has been rapid, similar to other specialties. There is large variation in time to retraction after publication. Plagiarism remains the most common 'single identifiable cause' of retraction, suggesting better integration of manuscript submission platforms with plagiarism-detection and web-indexing softwares is needed. Greater scrutiny for misconduct by journal editors and reviewers, and expanded training in research ethics may help prevent an upcoming crisis of research fraud.

 

Authors/Disclosures
Vivek Bhat
PRESENTER
Mr. Bhat has nothing to disclose.
Ahmad Ozair (King George'S Medical University) Mr. Ozair has nothing to disclose.
No disclosure on file