Año 2022 / Volumen 114 / Número 9
Carta
An analysis of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases

566-567

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8817/2022

Jiao Jiang, Shu Huang, Wensen Ren, Kang Zou, Xinyi Zeng, Yan Peng, Muhan Lü, Xiaowei Tang,

Resumen
Background: Review of retracted articles has a positive impact on scientific research. The aim of our study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was queried for retractions in pancreatic diseases on 7 March 2021, and the filters set were as follows: (1) the Title typed in was “pancreatitis”, “pancreas”, or “pancreatic”; (2) the Nature of notice selected was “retraction”. Results: A total of 116 retracted articles were identified as pancreatic disease-related, with over two-thirds of them pertaining to pancreatic cancer. Research article was the most common article type among these retractions. Common reasons given for retraction included scientific fraud (37.1%), duplication (26.7%), and reliability (25%). China had the largest number of retractions (n=51), followed by the United States (n=47). Most articles were retracted in recent years, particularly after 2015. Conclusions: A large proportion of retracted articles pertaining to pancreatic diseases have been retracted in recent years. The majority of publications—over three quarters—were retracted for authors who committed some type of misconduct. Differences between countries in the manner of misconduct were stark.
Share Button
Nuevo comentario
Comentarios
No hay comentarios para este artículo.
Bibliografía
1.Korpela KM. How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material?: the Breuning case revisited. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:843-847.
2.Armond ACV, Gordijn B, Lewis J, et al. A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Med Ethics 2021;22:50.
3.The Retraction Watch Database. Accessed 7 March 2021. Available at: http://ret‌ractiondatabase.org/.
4.Jiang J, Lü M, Tang X. Analysis of retracted articles in the field of Gastroenterology. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2022 Mar 14. doi: 10.17235/reed.2022.8760/2022. Online ahead of print.
5.Qi X, Deng H, Guo X. Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview. Postgrad Med J 2017;93:499-503.
Instrucciones para citar
Jiang J, Huang S, Ren W, Zou K, Zeng X, Peng Y, et all. An analysis of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases. 8817/2022


Descargar en un gestor de citas

Descargue la cita de este artículo haciendo clic en uno de los siguientes gestores de citas:

Métrica
Este artículo ha sido visitado 736 veces.
Este artículo ha sido descargado 75 veces.

Estadísticas de Dimensions


Estadísticas de Plum Analytics

Ficha Técnica

Recibido: 25/03/2022

Aceptado: 28/03/2022

Prepublicado: 04/04/2022

Publicado: 07/09/2022

Tiempo de prepublicación: 10 días

Tiempo de edición del artículo: 166 días


Compartir
Este artículo aun no tiene valoraciones.
Valoración del lector:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
La REED es el órgano oficial de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, la SociedadEspañola de Endoscopia Digestiva y la Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Política de cookies Política de Privacidad Aviso Legal © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas