Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 PhD Student, Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: With the significant expansion of research, we are witnessing the discrediting of some scientific outputs in the field of medicine. This study endeavored to investigate the dimensions and patterns of cooperation of internationally discredited works in the field of medicine in the Scopus database.
Methods: This study is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of conducting research and data analysis, it is quantitative and has been done using bibliometric analysis method and scientometric approach and illustration techniques to draw scientific collaborations. The population is all the discredited medical works available from 2016 to the end of 2020 in the Scopus database which has been done using the network analysis method.
Results: The findings showed that during the period, 480 works published in Scopus database were discredited. The Unites States, England, India, and China have the highest index of centrality, intimacy, and crosscontextuality. These countries play an important role in connecting nodes and transmitting information over the network.
Conclusion: Discredited articles in the United States and England have high centrality indices, which indicates the greater influence and power of these countries, which, in turn, have a greater influence on other countries in the scientific network.
Highlights
Shahnaz Khademizadeh: Google Google Scholar، Pubmed
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Mohamadloo A, Batooli Z. A scientometric and content analysis of research output on "Retracted Papers" indexed in Scopus. KAUMS Journal (FEYZ) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 20];24(4):446–61. Available from: http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/article-1-4121-en.html [In Persian]
- Mohammadhassanzadeh H, Beigzadeh A, Nazarieh M. A road to ethics: a new experience of retraction. Journal of Emergency Practice and Trauma [Internet]. 2016;2(1):1–2. Available from: https://www.magiran.com/paper/1483774
- Gross C. Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology. 2016 Jan 4;67:693–711.
- poroushasb sanaz. Pathology and study of the Iranian retracted papers in Scopus, Google Scholar, and Research gate Databases Between 1997-2017. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management [Internet]. 2018;4(2):137–56. Available from: https://stim.qom.ac.ir/article_1137.html [In Persian]
- Janavi E, Moradi S. Citation Fate of World Retracted Articles: The Comparative Study of Humanities, Medical Science, Engineering Science and Pure Science. Iranian Journal of Information Management [Internet]. 2018;4(1):25–40. Available from: http://www.aimj.ir/article_80757.html [In Persian]
- Thielen J. When scholarly publishing goes awry: Educating ourselves and our patrons about retracted articles. Portal. 2018 Jan 1;18(1):183–98.
- Ghorbi A, Fahimifar S. Aspects and Collaboration Patterns of Retracted Papers as Evidence of Research Misconduct in Iran and Foreign countries. Scientometrics Research Journal [Internet]. 2020;6(11):149–72. Available from: http://rsci.shahed.ac.ir/article_1033.html [In Persian]
- Ghorbi A, Fahimifar S, Fazeli-Varzaneh M, Saeidnia H. A Comparative Study of the Status of Scientific Collaboration Based on Centrality Measures in the Middle East Countries’ Retracted Articles. Iranian Journal of Information Management [Internet]. 2020;6(1):223–46. Available from: http://www.aimj.ir/article_125508.html [In Persian]
- Morovati M, Riahinia N. Retractions in Endocrinology and Metabolism Journals: Causes and Characteristics. Journal of Health Administration [Internet]. 2019 Dec 10 [cited 2022 Jul 20];22(4):50–61. Available from: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3111-en.html [In Persian]
- Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS ONE. 2012 Oct 24;7(10).
- Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A. How many scientific papers should be retracted? [2]. EMBO Reports. 2007 May;8(5):422–3.
- Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics [Internet]. 2011 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Jul 11];37(11):688–92. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/37/11/688
- Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2016 Jul 8 [cited 2022 Jul 11];8(7). Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-32022-034
- Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028–33.
- Janavi E, moradi shima. The Fate of Middle Eastern Countries’ Retracted Articles on Health. Rahyaft [Internet]. 2019;29(74):53–64. Available from: https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13766.html [In Persian]
- Ghorbi A, Fazeli-Varzaneh M, Ghaderi-Azad E, Ausloos M, Kozak M. Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations. Scientometrics. 2021 Sep 1;126(9):7351–71.
- Fanelli D. Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Medicine. 2013;10(12):1–6.
- Moradi S, Janavi E, Kazemi H. A Comparative Study of Scientific Misconduct through the World. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies [Internet]. 2018;28(4):75–94. Available from: http://nastinfo.nlai.ir/article_2213.html [In Persian]
- Budd JM, Coble Z, Abritis A. An investigation of retracted articles in the biomedical literature. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016;53(1):1–9.
- Sugawara Y, Tanimoto T, Miyagawa S, Murakami M, Tsuya A, Tanaka A, Kami M, Narimatsu H. Scientific Misconduct and Social Media: Role of Twitter in the Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency Cells Scandal. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 28;19(2):e57. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6706. PMID: 28246071; PMCID: PMC5350454.
21. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006 Apr 18;144(8):609–13.
)