Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine

Paul Sebo · Melissa Sebo

14 citations0/0 files storedAccountability in Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline. RESULTS: = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better. CONCLUSION: RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications 2013Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?2012A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature 2013Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign 2010Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?2013The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science 2022Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study 2014The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.