No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
BACKGROUND: Science is a dynamic subject with ever-changing concepts and is said to be self-correcting. One of the major mechanisms of self-correction is retraction of flawed work. AIM: To study the various parameters associated with retraction of scientific articles in 2012 and 2013 and discuss the current trends in article retraction over the period of 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the keywords retraction of articles, retraction notice, and withdrawal of article in January 2014, and analysis of articles published in 2012 and 2013 was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 155 articles in 2012 and 182 in 2013 were retracted, and original articles followed by case reports constituted major part of it. The most cited reasons for retraction were mistakes, plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and the time interval between submission and retraction had reduced in 2013. CONCLUSION: Although retracted articles constitute the tip of an iceberg, they are still a matter of major concern in the scientific world. So, editors should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and make an effective strategy in order to reduce such misconduct, as it reflects very adversely not only in the scientific community but also in the general public.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.