TÜRKİYE’DEN GERİ ÇEKİLEN BİLİMSEL YAYINLARIN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Günümüzde bilimsel yayınların sayısı, kariyer basamakları ve bilim camiasında saygınlık açısından çok önemlidir. Araştırmacılar her yıl yayın sayısını artırmaya odaklandığından bazen yayınların kalitesinden ödün verilmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türk yazarlar tarafından yayımlandıktan sonra geri çekilen yayınların özelliklerini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: “Geri çekilmiş yayın/lar” ile “Türkiye” MeSH terimleri ayrı ayrı ve kombinasyon halinde PubMed, Scopus ve Web of Science veritabanlarında tarandı. Çalışmaya dahil edilme kriterleri yayının geri çekilmiş olması ve ilgili yayının yazarlarından birinin Türkiye'deki bir kurumla bağlantısı olmasıydı. Seçilen yayınlar bibliyografik bilgiler açısından incelendi. Bulgular: Üç veri tabanından toplam 147 yayın alındı. Geri çekilen ilk makale 1996'da yayınlanmıştı ve sonraki yıllarda geri çekilen yayınlarda artış izlendi. Tam metne erişim 106 (%72,1) makalede sağlandı. Yayınlar toplam 127 ayrı bilimsel dergide yayınlanmıştı. Scientific Reports ve Aesthetic Plastic Surgery dergileri dört geri çekilmiş yayın ile en çok geri çekilmiş yayına sahip dergilerdi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi yedi yayınla toplama en çok katkı sağlayan enstitü oldu. Geri çekilen makalelerde en yaygın neden duplikasyondu ve 50 (%34) yayında saptandı, geri çekme bildirimlerinin 63 (%42,9)’ü editör tarafından yayınlandı. Yayınların çoğunluğu sağlık bilimleri alanında 93 (%63,3 makale) ve alt başlık olarak da 44'ü cerrahi alanındaydı. Çalışmalarda Türk yazarların 20 ülke ile uluslararası işbirlikleri vardı. Sonuç: Geri çekilen yayınların sayısı fazla olmamakla birlikte artış gösterme eğilimindedir. Bu durumu önlemek için araştırma metodolojisi ve araştırma etiği eğitimleri çok önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• araştırma eğitimi
• araştırma etiği
• araştırma metodolojisi
• Geri çekilmiş yayınlar
• Türkiye

Postmortem of Retracted Scientific Publications from Türkiye

Öz

Aim: These days the number of scientific publications is crucial in career advancements and respect in the scientific community. The researchers focus on increasing the number of publications per year, which sometimes compromises the quality of publications. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of retracted publications with contributions from Turkish authors. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched with a combination of MeSH terms and free words relevant to “retracted publication/s” and “Turkey.” The inclusion criteria were (i) retracted publication and (ii) any authors of the study having affiliation with an institution in Turkey. Bibliographic information of selected publications was extracted. Results: A total of 147 publications were retrieved from three databases. The earliest retracted article was published in 1996, followed by an increasing trend of retracted publications. The study showed 106 (72.1%) articles have full-text Access. Overall 127 scientific journals have published these articles. Scientific Reports and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were the top journals with four retracted publications. Hacettepe University, was the lead institute, contributing seven publications. The most common reasons for retractions were duplication 50 (34%) and most retracted notices were issued by editor 63 (42.9%). The majority of publications were from Medical Science 93 (63.3% paper) and the highest number, 44 were from surgery and allied. Turkish authors had international collaborations with 20 countries. Conclusion: The number of retracted publications is not high, the trend is increasing. To overcome this, research methodology and research ethics training are crucial.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• research training
• research ethics
• research methodology
• Retracted publications
• Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Thielen J. When Scholarly Publishing Goes Awry: Educating Ourselves and Our Patrons about Retracted Articles. portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2018;18(1):183–98.
2. Browman H. Retraction guidelines | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics [Internet]. publicationethics.org. 2019.
3. Brainard J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s “death penalty” [Internet]. www.science.org. 2018.
4. Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research. 2020;28(1):1–7.
5. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. Wray KB, editor. Plos One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127556.
6. Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson D, Malik M, et al. Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet [Internet]. 1998 Feb 28;351(9103):637–41.
7. Eggertson L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Canadian Medical Association Journal [Internet]. 2010;182(4):e199–200.
8. Azoulay P, Krieger JL, Alessandro Bonatti, Bureau N. The career effects of scandal: evidence from scientific retractions. Cambridge, Ma: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2015.

9. Nassi-Calò L. The challenges of retraction: cleaning up the literature might be difficult | SciELO in Perspective [Internet]. Sci Elo in Perspective. 2014.
10. Cascella M, Fiore M, Alfieri A, Pace M, Simeon V, Chiodini P, et al. A scoping review of retracted publications in anesthesiology. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia. 2021;15(2):179.
11. Lievore C, Rubbo P, dos Santos CB, Picinin CT, Pilatti LA. Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities. Scientometrics. 2021;126(8):6871–89.
12. Budd JM. Retracted Publications in Biomedicine: Cause for Concern - Flipbook by | FlipHTML5 [Internet]. fliphtml5.com. 2015.
13. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;(11):e012047.
14. 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;126(9):7351–71.
15. Mansourzadeh MJ, Ghazimirsaeid J, Motamedi N, Najafi A, Abdullahi Abubakar A, Dehdarirad H. A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2021;50(1).
16. Bozzo A, Bali K, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2(1).
17. Nogueira TE, Gonçalves AS, Leles CR, Batista AC, Costa LR. A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Research Notes. 2017;10(1).
18. Shamim T. Data regarding articles retracted from PubMed indexed dental journals from India. Data in Brief. 2018;(1):1069–72.
19. Kim SY, Bae C-W, Hahm CK, Cho HM. Duplicate Publication Rate Decline in Korean Medical Journals. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2014;29(2):172.
20. Jia Y, Huang D, Wen J, Qureshi R, Wang Y, Rosman L, et al. Assessment of Duplicate Publication of Chinese-Sponsored Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Dec 3;3(12):e2027104.
21. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR. Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2008;14(2):297–8.
22. Fanelli D. Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. Scalas E, editor. Plos One. 2010;5(4):e10271.
23. Öğretim Üyeliğine Yükseltilme ve Atanma Yönetmeliği [Internet]. Resmi Gazete Sayısı 30449. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete; 2018. Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/06/20180612-6.htm
24. Akademik Teşvik Ödeneği Yönetmeliği [Internet]. Resmi Gazete Sayısı 30461. Türkiye; 2018. Available from: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=201811834&MevzuatTur=21&MevzuatTertip=5
25. Lisansüstü Eğitim ve Öğretim Yönetmeliği [Internet]. Resmi Gazete Sayısı 29690. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete; 2016. Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/04/20160420-16.htm
26. Hurriyet Daily News. Fraud “professor” uses name similarity in scientific articles - Turkey News [Internet]. Hürriyet Daily News. 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 28].
27. CNN Türk. Zehra Zulal Atalay Laçin’in foyası “Hayırlı olsun” ziyaretinde ortaya çıktı [Internet]. CNN Türk. 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 28].
28. Okubo Y. Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers [Internet]. 1997;1997(1).
29. Petersen AM, Fortunato S, Pan RK, Kaski K, Penner O, Rungi A, et al. Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Internet]. 2014;111(43):15316–21.
30. Fanelli D, Larivière V. Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. Dorta-González P, editor. Plos One. 2016;11(3):e0149504.
31. Hayes S. Criminal Justice Ethics [Internet]. routledgetextbooks.com. 2015 [cited 2022 Jan 28].
32. Bakhtiyari K, Salehi H, Embi MA, Shakiba M, Zavvari A, Shahbazi-Moghadam M, et al. Ethical and Unethical Methods of Plagiarism Prevention in Academic Writing. International Education Studies [Internet]. 2014;7(7).
33. Zhang Y. Bilingual (multilingual) publications and duplicate publications: for or against? Journal of Zhejiang University Science A. 2013;14(9):687–90.
34. Marcus AA. When a paper duplicates one in another language, how can editors spot it? [Internet]. Retraction Watch. 2019.
35. Freshwater D, Sherwood G, Drury V. International research collaboration. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2006;11(4):295–303.
36. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The Faseb Journal. 2008;22(2):338–42.
37. The National Academies Press. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research--Third Edition. National Academies Press. 500 Fifth Street Nw, Washington, Dc 1.
38. Gökçay B, Arda B. A Review of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry Process, Ankara Chamber of Medicine, Turkey. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2016;23(4):1097–112.
39. Aithal S, Sreeramana Aithal P. How to Increase Research Productivity in Higher Educational Institutions -SIMS Model [Internet]. 2016