Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature.

BACKGROUND Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers. METHODS NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms "surgery," "surg," or "surgical" and "retracted" or "retraction." Article details were recorded. RESULTS There were 184 retracted surgical articles identified from 1991 through 2015. Average retraction time was 3.6 years. General (26%), Cardiac (22%), and Orthopedic (10%) surgery were most common. Reasons for retraction were duplication (35.3%), Institutional Review Board violations (18.5%), falsified data (14.7%), data errors (9.8%), author dispute (8.2%), plagiarism (7.6%), copyright violations (2.2%), financial disclosure violations (0.5%), and consent (0.5%). No reason for retraction was given in 8.7% of cases. Median IF was higher for administrative than content-related retraction reasons (3.0 vs. 2.0, P < 0.01). A paywall, requiring a subscription to read, restricted access to 23.4% of retraction notices. CONCLUSIONS Article retractions occur across all fields of surgery for various reasons, both administrative and content-related. The majority of surgical retraction notices have a reason for retraction listed and do not require payment to read.

[1]  B. Druss,et al.  Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[2]  M Sievert,et al.  Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. , 1998, JAMA.

[3]  J. Couzin,et al.  Cleaning Up the Paper Trail , 2006, Science.

[4]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Martin Reinhart,et al.  The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles , 2016, Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine.

[6]  David B. Allison,et al.  Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors , 2016, Nature.

[7]  Anne Victoria Neale,et al.  Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[8]  J. Carlisle,et al.  The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity , 2012, Anaesthesia.

[9]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature , 2014, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[10]  E. Wager,et al.  Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008 , 2011, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[11]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). , 2009, Maturitas.

[12]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Correction: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? , 2013, PLoS ONE.

[13]  M Sievert,et al.  Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. , 1999, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[14]  J. Pandit On statistical methods to test if sampling in trials is genuinely random , 2012, Anaesthesia.