Advertisement

Retracted Publications in Medical Imaging Literature: an Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

Published:August 14, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.06.025

      Rationale and Objective

      It is currently unknown how many publications in the medical imaging literature are retracted and for which reasons. The purpose of this study was to perform an updated analysis on retracted medical imaging publications using the Retraction Watch Database.

      Materials and Methods

      The Retraction Watch Database was searched for all retracted publications in the subject category “Radiology/Imaging" (no beginning date limit, search update until April 27, 2022). Reasons for retraction were extracted using standardized coding taxonomy. The number of citations per retracted publication was determined. Spearman's rho was used for statistical analysis.

      Results

      192 retractions, originally published between 1984 and 2021, were included. Most retractions originated from China (31.3%), the United States (12.5%), Japan (7.3%), and South Korea (6.3%). The number of retractions increased over the years, especially since 2000 (Spearman's rho=0.764, p <0.001). Delay between original publication and retraction ranged from 0 days to 14 years and 3 months (median of 11 months). Most common reasons for retraction were duplication of article (7.1%), plagiarism of article (6.8%), concerns/issues about data (5.4%), investigation by company/institution (4.5%), and forged authorship (4.0%). Scientific misconduct was deemed present in 107 of 192 retracted articles (55.7%). Retracted articles (of which 138 were listed in Web of Science) received a median of 2 citations (range 0-148, IQR 5).

      Conclusion

      The number of retracted medical imaging publications continues to increase over time, which could indicate that more compromised research has either been published or discovered. Scientific misconduct was the main cause for retraction.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Budd JM
        • Sievert M
        • Schultz TR.
        Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications.
        JAMA. 1998; 280: 296-297https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
        • Grieneisen ML
        • Zhang M.
        A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7: e44118https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
        • Rosenkrantz AB.
        Retracted publications within radiology journals.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 206: 231-235https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15163
      1. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retraction guidelines. COPE Council. 2019. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf

        • Brainard J
        • You J.
        What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's “death penalty.
        Science. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384
      2. The Retraction Watch Database.
        The Center for Scientific Integrity, New York2018 (ISSN: 2692-465X. Available from:) (Accessed May 1, 2022)
        • Audisio K
        • Robinson NB
        • Soletti GJ
        • et al.
        A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature.
        Int J Cardiol. 2022 15; 349: 109-114https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.12.021
        • Barton AT
        • Cordero-Coma M
        • Gallagher MJ
        • et al.
        The application of the retraction watch database in eye research-based studies.
        Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021; 69: 3767https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_2293_21
        • Bennett C
        • Chambers LM
        • Al-Hafez L
        • et al.
        Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020; 2100201https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100201
        • Rapani A
        • Lombardi T
        • Berton F
        • et al.
        Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: a systematic review.
        Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020; 6: 383-390https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.292
      3. 2020 Journal Citation Reports (InCites).
        2022 (Accessed May 12)
      4. Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B:.
        Reasons, 2022 (Accessed May 1)
        • Audisio K
        • Robinson NB
        • Soletti GJ
        • et al.
        A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature.
        Int J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 15; 349: 109-114https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.12.021
        • Moylan EC
        • Kowalczuk MK.
        Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central.
        BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 23; 6e012047https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047
        • Resnik DB
        • Rasmussen LM
        • Kissling GE.
        An international study of research misconduct policies.
        Account Res. 2015; 22: 249-266https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218
        • Grieneisen ML
        • Zhang M.
        A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7: e44118https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
      5. Web of Science.
        2022 (Available from:) (Accessed May 12)
        • Fanelli D.
        Publishing: rise in retractions is a signal of integrity.
        Nature. 2014; 509: 33https://doi.org/10.1038/509033a
        • Masic I
        • Begic E
        • Dobraca A.
        Plagiarism detection by online solutions.
        Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017; 238: 227-230
        • Retraction Watch
        We wrote what? The problem of forged authorship. Plus, a guest appearance on MedPage Today.
        2022 (Available from:) (Accessed May 29)
        • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science
        Fostering Integrity in Research. 6. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)2017 (Apr 11Understanding the CausesAvailable from) (Accessed May 29, 2022)
        • Committee on Publication Ethics
        Guidelines.
        COPE Council, 2022 (Available from:) (Accessed May 29)
        • Dal-Ré R
        • Bouter LM
        • Cuijpers P
        • et al.
        Should research misconduct be criminalized?.
        Research Ethics. 2020; 16: 1-12https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898400