Get expert advice to help you get published!

You are here

What are the most common reasons for retraction?

Clarinda Cerejo | Oct 16, 2013 | 70,542 views
What are the most common reasons for retraction?

The number of published papers being retracted is increasing dramatically and is higher than ever before. Although retracted papers still represent a miniscule proportion of the total published literature, the rate of increase in retractions is alarming, as retracted papers tarnish both a researcher’s career and the integrity of the literature itself.

Studies may be retracted for a variety of reasons. The reasons for retraction can broadly be categorized as honest error, intentional or unintentional misconduct, or others. The first two categories and especially interesting, and I’ll discuss them in detail. The third category—others—usually involves papers where the reason for retraction is not clearly stated in the retraction notice or is not clear to the journal editor(s). For example, authors may retract a paper that has been simultaneously submitted to and accepted by another journal. Although this would amount to misconduct on the authors’ part for not having informed the journal of the duplicate submissions, the retraction would be listed in the “other” category if the authors do not disclose the reason for retraction.

The table below lists possible reasons that may feature under the former two categories—honest error and unintentional or intentional misconduct. These are some of the common reasons, although the list is not exhaustive. Most retractions with these underlying reasons are initiated by the journal.

Honest error

Misconduct

  • Errors in sample or data
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Skewed statistical analysis
  • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
  • Inaccuracies or unverifiable information
  • Salami slicing (using the same data set to publish multiple studies)
  • Irreproducibility
  • Data fabrication or manipulation
  • Redundant publication (discovery that some aspects have already been published)
  • Lack of adherence to ethical protocols
  • Disputes over authorship attribution
  • Duplicate submissions (to different journals at the same time)

 

Another interesting but alarming fact is the way in which the reasons for retraction have changed over the last thirty years. A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2011 reported that 73.5% of 742 retractions between 2000 and 2010 were due to error and only 26.6% due to fraud. However, a large-scale follow-up study published in PNAS very recently, which involved the author of the 2011 study as well, found that misconduct (including data manipulation and plagiarism) is actually the primary reason for retraction, accounting for 67% of the total retractions since 1977. The figure below shows the major reasons for retraction and how they have become increasingly prominent since 1977.

 

(Figure credit: Fang et al. PNAS 2012)

So as you can see, retractions, especially those due to misconduct, are increasing at an alarming rate. What’s more is that plagiarism and duplicate publication, which were not factors earlier, are becoming more commonplace, possibly because of new technologies such as plagiarism detection software packages now employed by journals and because of the increase in submissions from countries where English is not the first language. 

This increase in retractions has been attributed to the pressure to publish and the rat race that researchers find themselves in. With recent studies having shed light on how misconduct is plaguing science, journal editors and peer reviewers are more likely to be alert in spotting issues with papers before they are published.

Republish

Like this article? Republish it!
Knowledge should be open to all. We encourage our viewers to republish articles, online or in print. Our Creative Commons license allows you to do so for free. We only ask you to follow a few simple guidelines:
  • Attribution: Remember to attribute our authors. They spend a lot of time and effort in creating this content for you.
  • Editage Insights: Include an attribution to Editage Insights as the original source.
  • Consider a teaser: Yes, that’s what we call it…a teaser. You could include a few lines of this post and say “Read the whole article on Editage Insights”. Don’t forget to add the link to the article.
  • Re-using images: Re-publishing some of the images from our articles may need prior permission from or credit to the original image source.
  • Quick and easy embed code: The simplest way to share this article on your webpage would be to embed the code below.

 

Please copy the above code and embed it onto your website to republish.
Join a community of 179000+ researchers
Editage Insights offers a wealth of free resources on academic research and publishing. Sign up and get complete access to a vibrant global community of researchers. Gain expertise & share your own with authors and others involved in scholarly publishing.
By clicking 'Join Now', you agree to our Terms & Privacy Policy.
Having trouble registering/logging in? Contact us
Q & A

Have your own question?

Travel grant for ISMTE

Related Categories