Abstract
Retractions of scientific papers published by some Iran-affiliated scientists in the preceding decade have attracted much attention and publicity; however, the reasons for these retractions have not been documented. We searched the Retraction Watch Database to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and aimed to outline the predominant reasons for retractions. The reasons included fake peer-review, authorship dispute, fabricated data, plagiarism, conflict of interest, erroneous data, and duplication. The Fisher’s exact test was used to investigate the associations between retractions and their underlying reasons. We selected P < 0.05 to indicate the statistically significant differences. We found 697 retracted papers. Duplication (27%), plagiarism (26%), and fake peer-review (21%) were the most frequent reasons for retractions. Our study highlights the importance of urgent intervention to prevent the misconduct and questionable research practices that lead to retractions in Iran. Continually educating the scientists and postgraduate students about the ethics and norms of scientific publishing is an important measure to ensure publication of reliable, worthy, and impactful papers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2017). Chinese and Iranian scientific publications: Fast growth and poor ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1
Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.
Bhargava, M., Vaswani, V., & Vaswani, R. (2019). Ethics-related guidelines for authors and article retractions: How do Indian biomedical journals measure up? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2019.076
Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: A systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty.’ Science, 25(1), 1–5.
Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
COPE Council (2014). What constitutes authorship? COPE discussion document. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3. Accessed January 2020.
Coudert, F.-X. (2019). Correcting the scientific record: Retraction practices in chemistry and materials science. Chemistry of Materials, 31(10), 3593–3598. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897
Das, N., & Das, S. (2018). Knowledge and attitudes of Indian surgeons regarding professional medical writing support. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 9(3), 127.
Didari, T., & Abdollahi, M. (2018). Ethical priority setting for successful publishing by Iranian scientists. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 33(49), e313. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e313
Elia, N., Wager, E., & Tramèr, M. R. (2014). Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: A descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 9(1), e85846.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738.
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One, 7(10), e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
Hadi, M. A. (2016). Fake peer-review in research publication: Revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 24(5), 309–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12307
He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555–561.
Inoue, Y., & Muto, K. (2016). Noncompliance with human subjects’ protection requirements as a reason for retracting papers: Survey of retraction notices on medical papers published from 1981 to 2011. Accountability in Research, 23(2), 123–135.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2020). Defining the role of authors and contributors. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed 19 May 2020.
Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WOS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409–1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7
Madlock-Brown, C. R., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1
Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). What studies of retractions tell us. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 151. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.855
Moradi, S., & Janavi, E. (2018). A scientometrics study of Iranian retracted papers [Article]. Iranian Journal of Information Processing Management, 33(4), 1823–1844.
Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed central. BMJ open, 6(11), e012047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047
Oransky, I. (2018a). Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the rankings. Science, 362(6413), 395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.395
Oransky, I. (2018b). We’re officially launching our database today. Here’s what you need to know. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/25/were-officially-launching-our-database-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/. Accessed Jan 2020.
Qi, X., Deng, H., & Guo, X. (2017). Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: An overview. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 93(1102), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-133969.
Retraction Watch. (2018). Retraction watch database user guide. https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/. Accessed May 2020.
Retraction Watch. (2020). Retraction watch database. https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx? Accessed Sept 2019.
Steen, R. G. (2011a). Retractions in the medical literature: How many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(11), 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2011.043133
Steen, R. G. (2011b). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923
Steen, R. G. (2012). Retractions in the medical literature: How can patients be protected from risk? Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100184
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(2), 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the collaboration with, and positive input by, our two insightful peer-reviewers who helped us immensely to improve our manuscript.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamali, N., Talebi Bezmin Abadi, A. & Rahimi, F. Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 3455–3463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6