Objective: To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices. Results: From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction.
CITATION STYLE
Deculllier, E., & Maisonneuve, H. (2018). Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices. BMC Research Notes, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3576-2
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.