Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review.

Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M Thomas
Author Information
  1. Shannon Samuel: Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana 141008, Punjab, India. ORCID
  2. Joe Mathew Cherian: Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana 141008, Punjab, India. ORCID
  3. Abi M Thomas: Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana 141008, Punjab, India. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. . A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions.
CONCLUSIONS: The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.

References

  1. Account Res. 2020 Oct;27(7):401-416 [PMID: 32279538]
  2. Infect Immun. 2011 Oct;79(10):3855-9 [PMID: 21825063]
  3. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 08;8(7):e68397 [PMID: 23861902]
  4. BMC Res Notes. 2017 Jul 6;10(1):253 [PMID: 28683764]
  5. JAMA. 2006 Jan 4;295(1):90-3 [PMID: 16391221]
  6. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Jul 3;104(13):982-9 [PMID: 22761273]
  7. Croat Med J. 2009 Dec;50(6):532-5 [PMID: 20017220]
  8. J Dent. 2018 Dec;79:19-23 [PMID: 30205129]
  9. Pharmacotherapy. 2012 Jul;32(7):586-95 [PMID: 22581659]
  10. PLoS One. 2019 Jun 13;14(6):e0217918 [PMID: 31194762]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028-33 [PMID: 23027971]
  12. J Dent Res. 2016 Oct;95(11):1207-13 [PMID: 27384336]
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Feb;206(2):231-5 [PMID: 26797347]
  14. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Oct;24(5):1653-1656 [PMID: 28653166]
  15. J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12):1364-7 [PMID: 20940367]
  16. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;5(1):19-23 [PMID: 25767762]
  17. Curr Sociol. 2017 Oct;65(6):814-845 [PMID: 28943647]
  18. EMBO Rep. 2008 Jan;9(1):2 [PMID: 18174889]
  19. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Oct;22(10):781-91 [PMID: 25558501]
  20. Gac Sanit. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(6):492-9 [PMID: 18001665]
  21. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Jul;100(3):184-9 [PMID: 22879807]