Bibliometric analysis of retracted papers in the field of hypertension

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 62 - 71, 04.02.2025

Erhan Kaya , Rasim Gökmen , Murat Kerkütlüoğlu

https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.1592169

Abstract

Retraction is the act of withdrawing an academic article. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate retracted publications on hypertension, one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. A search strategy was conducted in the Web of Science database. Information such as publication and retraction dates, the duration between them, the journal, the document type, the country of corresponding author, the reason for retraction and the requesting party, and the citation count were recorded. Trend analysis was used to illustrate the evolution of retracted papers over the years. The median duration of retracted papers was 681 days, with a median citation count of 6. The number of retracted publications has tended to increase over the years. The most frequently identified reasons for retraction were errors, fraud, and peer review issues. A total of 33.0% of the manuscripts mentioned funding. In terms of country distribution, China led with 29.1% retracted papers, followed by Japan and the USA. These findings underscore the detrimental impact of the length and increasing number of retraction periods on the reliability of the literature. Additionally, it highlights that this is a global issue prevalent among researchers’ publications in different countries, emphasizing the need for universal attention to scientific publication ethics and research standards.

Keywords

Hypertension, high blood pressure, retraction, retracted papers

Hipertansiyon Alanında Geri Çekilen Makalelerin Bibliyometrik Analizi

Abstract

Geri çekme, akademik bir makalenin geri çekilmesi eylemidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dünya çapında en yaygın kronik hastalıklardan biri olan hipertansiyon ile ilgili geri çekilen yayınları kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirmektir. Web of Science veri tabanında bir arama stratejisi uygulanmıştır. Yayın ve geri çekilme tarihleri, aralarındaki süre, dergi, belge türü, sorumlu yazarın ülkesi, geri çekilme nedeni ve talepte bulunan taraf, atıf sayısı gibi bilgiler kaydedilmiştir. Geri çekilen makalelerin yıllar içindeki gelişimini göstermek için trend analizi kullanılmıştır. Geri çekilen makalelerin medyan süresi 681 gün, medyan atıf sayısı ise 6 olarak bulunmuştur. Geri çekilen yayınların sayısı yıllar içinde artma eğilimi göstermiştir. En sık belirlenen geri çekilme nedenleri hatalar, sahtekârlık ve hakem değerlendirme sorunları olmuştur. Makalelerin %33,0’ü fonlama belirtmiştir. Ülke dağılımı açısından, Çin %29,1 oranıyla en fazla geri çekilen makaleye sahip olup, onu Japonya ve ABD takip etmektedir. Bu bulgular, geri çekilme sürelerinin uzunluğu ve artan sayısının literatürün güvenilirliği üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, bunun farklı ülkelerdeki araştırmacıların yayınlarında yaygın olan küresel bir sorun olduğunu, bilimsel yayın etiği ve araştırma standartlarına evrensel düzeyde dikkat edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Hipertansiyon, yüksek tansiyon, retraksiyon, geri çekilen makaleler

References

• Atlas MC. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2004;92(2):242.
• Dutta Majumder P, Raman R, Krishnan T, George R. Analysis of retracted articles in the ophthalmic literature. Eye. 2021;35(12):3384-8.
• Kocyigit BF, Akyol A. Analysis of retracted publications in the biomedical literature from Turkey. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2022;37(18):e142.
• Pantziarka P, Meheus L. Journal retractions in oncology: a bibliometric study. Future oncology. 2019;15(31):3597-608.
• Khan H, Gupta P, Zimba O, Gupta L. Bibliometric and altmetric analysis of retracted articles on COVID-19. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2022;37(6):e44.
• Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research. 2022;29(1):18-25.
• Samp JC, Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy. 2012;32(7):586-95.
• Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, Zicker F, Novaes MRCG, Oliveira CM de, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(4):e0214272.
• Yu Y, Li Y, Zhang Z, Gu Z, Zhong H, Zha Q, et al. A bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer of publications on COVID-19. Annals of translational medicine. 2020;8(13):816.
• Onchonga D, Mohamed E. Integrating social determinants of health in medical education: a bibliometric analysis study. Public Health. 2023;224:203-8.
• Huh S, Kim SY, Cho H-M. Characteristics of retractions from Korean medical journals in the KoreaMed database: A bibliometric analysis. PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0163588.
• Devos P, Menard J. Bibliometric analysis of research relating to hypertension reported over the period 1997–2016. Journal of hypertension. 2019;37(11):2116-22.
• Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. The lancet digital health. 2023;5(3):e105-e6.
• Resnik DB, Hosseini M. The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool. AI and Ethics. 2024:1-23.
• Huang C, Zhang Z, Mao B, Yao X. An overview of artificial intelligence ethics. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence. 2022;4(4):799-819.
• Gaudino M, Robinson NB, Audisio K, Rahouma M, Benedetto U, Kurlansky P, et al. Trends and characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical literature, 1971 to 2020. JAMA internal medicine. 2021;181(8):1118-21.
• Wang X, Gao N, Chen H, Wang W. Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology. European Journal of Neurology. 2023;30(12):3896-903.
• Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(42):17028-33.
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Bornemann-Cimenti H. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics. 2017;110:365-70.
• Lu SF, Jin GZ, Uzzi B, Jones B. The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific reports. 2013;3(1):3146.
• Devos P, Ménard J. Trends in worldwide research in hypertension over the period 1999–2018: a bibliometric study. Hypertension. 2020;76(5):1649-55.
• Rai R, Sabharwal S. Retracted publications in orthopaedics: prevalence, characteristics, and trends. JBJS. 2017;99(9):e44.
• He T. Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics. 2013;96:555-61.
• Ribeiro MD, Vasconcelos SM. Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics. 2018;114:719-34.
• Kaya E, Üçer H. Tularemia research activity: a bibliometric analysis between 1980 and 2020. Infection. 2022;50(6):1507-15.