Logo image
Back
Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study

S Stretton, N J Bramich, J R Keys, J A Monk, J A Ely, C Haley, M J Woolley and Karen L Woolley
Current Medical Research and Opinion, Vol.28(10), p.1575–1583
2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131
url
https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131View
Published Version

Abstract

fabrication falsification plagiarism retraction of publication as topic scientific misconduct
Objectives: To investigate whether plagiarism is more prevalent in publications retracted from the medical literature when first authors are affiliated with lower-income countries versus higher-income countries. Secondary objectives included investigating other factors associated with plagiarism (e.g., national language of the first author's country affiliation, publication type, journal ranking). Design: Systematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study. Data source: Retracted publications dataset in MEDLINE (search filters: English, human, January 1966-February 2008). Data selection: Retracted misconduct publications were classified according to the first author's country affiliation, country income level, and country national language, publication type, and ranking of the publishing journal. Standardised definitions and data collection tools were used; data were analysed (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence limits [CL], chi-squared tests) by an independent academic statistician. Results: Of the 213 retracted misconduct publications, 41.8% (89/213) were retracted for plagiarism, 52.1% (111/ 213) for falsification/fabrication, 2.3% (5/213) for author disputes, 2.3% (5/213) for ethical issues, and 1.4% (3/213) for unknown reasons. The OR (95% CL) of plagiarism retractions (other misconduct retractions as reference) were higher (P50.001) for first authors affiliated with lower-income versus higher-income countries (15.4 [4.5, 52.9]) and with non-English versus English national language countries (3.2 [1.8, 5.7]), for non-original research versus original research publications (8.4 [3.3, 21.3]), for case reports and series versus other original research types (4.2 [1.4, 13.0]), and for publications in low-ranked versus high-ranked journals (4.9 [2.4, 9.9]). Up until 2012, there were significantly (P50.007) fewer 'serial offenders' (first authors with41 retraction) with publications retracted for plagiarism (11.5%, 9/78) than other types of misconduct (28.9%, 24/83). Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that publications retracted for plagiarism are significantly associated with first authors affiliated with lower-income countries. These findings have implications for developing appropriate evidence-based strategies and allocation of resources to help mitigate plagiarism misconduct.

Details

Metrics

4 File views/ downloads
366 Record Views
69 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web Of Science research areas
Medicine, Research & Experimental
Logo image