Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Articles in Arts and Humanities Are Being Retracted?

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

This article describes some of the characteristics of retracted articles in Arts and Humanities. A total 129 retracted articles in Arts and Humanities journals were identified using Retraction Watch and Scopus and then analyzed. The analysis shows that the main reasons for retracting Arts and Humanities articles is recycling and plagiarism. The analysis also shows that retracted articles continue to be read, downloaded and cited as well as mentioned in social media channels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*Note that retracted articles mentioned in this article are not included in the reference list. This is done in order to avoid their continuous citations

  1. Almeida RMV, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SM. Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1447–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amos KA. The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc: JMLA. 2014;102(2):87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):547–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics. 2018;116(3):1771–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biagioli M, Kenney MM, Martin BR, Walsh J. Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: a reassessment. Res Policy. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999;87(4):437–43.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J. 2014;28(9):3847–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Corbyn Z. Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions. Nature. 2012;490(7418):21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Decullier E, Huot L, Samson G, Maisonneuve H. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6(1):238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fabula É de recherche. Fabula, Atelier littéraire: Plagiat sans fard [Text]. n.d. https://www.fabula.org/atelier.php?Plagiat_sans_fard. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

  12. Fanelli D, Costas R, Fang FC, Casadevall A, Bik EM. Why do scientists fabricate and falsify data? A matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications. 2017. BioRxiv 126805. https://doi.org/10.1101/126805.

  13. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun. 2011;79(10):3855–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(42):17028–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014;55(1):61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glänzel W, Braun T, Schubert A, Zosimo-Landolfo G. Coping with copying. Scientometrics. 2015;102(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lariviere V, Gingras Y. On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980–2007). J Doc. 2010;66(2):179–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014;21(1):127–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marcus A, Oransky I. What studies of retractions tell us. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014;15(2):151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Medica. 2012;20(4):208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Overlapping publications and self-plagiarism – Forskerportalen.dk. n.d. https://forskerportalen.dk/en/overlapping-publications-and-self-plagiarism/. Retrieved 28 Aug 2019.

  22. Retraction Watch Database. n.d. http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?. Retrieved 18 Jan 2019.

  23. Smart P, Gaston T. How prevalent are plagiarized submissions? Global survey of editors. Learn Publ. 2019;32(1):47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):113–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams P, Wager E. Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Mailstop 1102, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Gali Halevi

Authors
  1. Gali Halevi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gali Halevi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halevi, G. Why Articles in Arts and Humanities Are Being Retracted?. Pub Res Q 36, 55–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09699-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09699-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation