Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.
Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
Author Information
Soo Young Hwang: Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
Dong Keon Yon: Center for Digital Health, Medical Science Research Institute, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
Seung Won Lee: Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea. ORCID
Min Seo Kim: Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
Jong Yeob Kim: Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
Lee Smith: Centre for Health Performance and Wellbeing, Anglia Ruskin University Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ORCID
Ai Koyanagi: Research and Development Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Spain. ORCID
Marco Solmi: Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. ORCID
Andre F Carvalho: IMPACT - The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. ORCID
Eunyoung Kim: Department of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
Jae Il Shin: Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ORCID
John P A Ioannidis: Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. ORCID
BACKGROUND: Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices. RESULTS: A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.
