[Paper Review] Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?

Kiran Sharma|arXiv (Cornell University)|Nov 26, 2020

Academic integrity and plagiarism8 references4 citations

TL;DR

This study analyzes 12,231 retracted scientific papers (1981–2020) using bibliometric and network analysis to investigate collaboration patterns, citation impacts, and journal influence. It finds that smaller research teams have higher retraction rates, 25.4% of retracted papers were cited with at least one retraction, and journal impact factor is independent of retraction or citation frequency—highlighting systemic risks in scientific publishing regardless of journal prestige.

ABSTRACT

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications and this database reveals the disturbing trend in science~\citep{fang2012misconduct, brainard2018massive}. The objective of the study is to find the association among the authors' collaboration, the number of retracted papers, the number of retracted citations, journal impact factor, and research areas. We present a detailed analysis of 12231 research papers indexed by Web of Science (WoS) as retracted publications from 1981-2020. The study demonstrates the collaboration patterns of retracted publications where 61.5% of authors have only one and 24.6% have two retracted papers; however, 2% of authors have more than 10 retracted papers. To study the impact of citing retracted papers, we investigated the retracted papers with citations. The study reveals that 55.2% of retracted papers have been cited at least once, where 25.4% of papers are such papers where at least one citation turned out to be a retraction. This shows the impact of scientific misconduct or fraud on new research. The number of retractions is independent of the journal impact factor and as compared to high impact papers, low impact papers are attracting more citations. We also investigate the citations received by retracted papers published in higher as well as lower impact factor journals. 1/4th of the papers are retracted citations that cited the retracted papers; however, there is no significant relationship exists between the higher impact or lower impact journals with retractions or citations. Finally, how the average team size and average retracted citations vary among different research areas are studied. The study provides an insight that how a fraud leads to another fraud in the scientific world. Also, the rising trend of citations of retracted papers is a serious concern.

Motivation & Objective

• To investigate the association between author collaboration patterns and the frequency of retracted publications.
• To assess the extent to which retracted papers are cited, including citations that themselves become retracted.
• To evaluate whether journal impact factor correlates with the number of retractions, citations, or retracted citations.
• To analyze variations in retraction rates and citation patterns across different scientific research areas.
• To examine the role of team size and research discipline in scientific misconduct and retractions.

Proposed method

• Data were extracted from Web of Science for 12,231 retracted publications between 1981 and 2020.
• Bibliometric and network analysis techniques were used to map author collaboration patterns and team size distributions.
• Citation analysis tracked citations to retracted papers and identified cases where citing papers were themselves retracted.
• Journal impact factor was correlated with retraction counts, citation counts, and retracted citation counts to assess influence.
• Research areas were classified and compared based on average team size, retraction frequency, and citation impact.
• Temporal trends in retractions and citations were analyzed using cumulative growth curves and statistical comparisons.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Do authors who produce one retracted paper tend to produce more, indicating persistent misconduct?
• RQ2 To what extent are retracted papers cited, and how often are those citing papers also retracted?
• RQ3 Is there a significant relationship between journal impact factor and the number of retractions or citations received by retracted papers?
• RQ4 Do smaller research teams have higher retraction rates compared to larger teams?
• RQ5 Which scientific disciplines experience the highest rates of retraction, and how do their average team sizes and citation patterns compare?

Key findings

• 61.5% of authors have only one retracted paper, 24.6% have two, but 2% have more than 10, indicating a small group of prolific offenders.
• 55.2% of retracted papers were cited at least once, and 25.4% of these had at least one citation that was itself retracted.
• One in four retracted papers (25.4%) were cited by papers that were later retracted, showing cascading effects of scientific misconduct.
• The number of retractions and citations is independent of journal impact factor, with low-impact journals attracting more citations per retracted paper.
• Journals with no or low impact factors experienced a large number of retractions, challenging the assumption that high-impact journals are more prone to misconduct.
• Biological and oncological research areas had the highest retraction rates, with average team sizes exceeding 4.6 authors, and these areas also showed high average retracted citation counts.