Year: 2018
Type: article
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices. RESULTS: From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction.
Source: BMC Research Notes
Authors: Evelyne Deculllier, Hervé Maisonneuve
Institutions: Lyon 1 Université, Hospices Civils de Lyon
Language: English
Subfield: Safety Research
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $1,690
Funder: Hospices Civils de Lyon
OpenAlex ID: W2884188503