ArticlePDF Available

Retraction: The “Other Face” of Research Collaboration?

Authors:
Li Tang at Fudan University
Li Tang
Guangyuan Hu
Guangyuan Hu
Guangyuan Hu
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Yang Sui
Yang Sui
Yang Sui
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Yuhan Yang
Yuhan Yang
Yuhan Yang
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Show all 5 authorsHide
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.
Figures - available from: Science and Engineering Ethics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Learn more
Content available from Science and Engineering Ethics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Supplementary resource (1)

知识分子.docx
Data
November 2020
Li Tang · Guangyuan Hu · Yang Sui · Yuhan Yang · Cong Cao
... Sharma (2021) set a threshold of ten participants and found that the majority of retractions are from teams composed of fewer individuals. Similar results were found by Tang, Hu, Sui, Yang, and Cao (2020), who also found that the majority of the retractions are within the national borders. In our paper, we are considering these aspects but also extending them by providing geographical context, in particular in international research collaborations. ...
The Impact of International Collaborations with Highly Publishing Countries in Computer Science
Preprint
Full-text available
  • May 2025
This paper analyzes international collaborations in Computer Science, focusing on three major players: China, the European Union, and the United States. Drawing from a comprehensive literature review, we examine collaboration patterns, research impact, retraction rates, and the role of the Development Index in shaping research outcomes. Our findings show that while China, the EU, and the US lead global research efforts, other regions are narrowing the gap in publication volume. Collaborations involving these key regions tend to have lower retraction rates, reflecting stronger adherence to scientific standards. We also find that countries with a Very High Development Index contribute to research with higher citation rates and fewer retractions. Overall, this study highlights the value of international collaboration and the importance of inclusive, ethical practices in advancing global research in Computer Science.
View
... The substantial proportion of authors, particularly from the United States and China, may be attributed to high research activity and a more active system for tracking and reporting retractions in these countries. The results align with the study conducted by Tang et al. [46] that advocates that the United States, China, India, Japan and Germany all witness a higher proportion of retractions. These nations were severely affected by the virus, which may have led them to produce more and more research papers in less time. ...
Scientific misconduct during the pandemic: Retractions in the field of COVID-19
Article
  • Feb 2025
The article aims to understand the characteristics of the retracted articles during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to identify the countries with the highest number of retractions and the correlation of retractions with funding status, impact factor and collaborations. The study utilised the Retraction Watch Database to identify the retracted articles in the area of COVID-19. The requisite details for each retracted article were recorded, such as title, cause of retraction, date of publication and date of retraction. The impact factor of the journals was ascertained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR-2021) of Clarivate Analytics, and the causes of retraction were categorised under seven major headings according to Charlesworth Author Services. Further, the study used a chi-squared test to determine the association or relationship between the studied variables. As of December 2022, 264 COVID-19 articles were retracted, of which a large proportion (36, 18.27%) were retracted just after 1 month of publication. The retracted articles were published mainly in journals (224, 84.84%), with 40 (15.15%) articles available on the preprint servers. A significant proportion of retractions were initiated by the authors, editors & authors & editors jointly. However, 6.06% of articles did not mention the retraction authority. Most retractions are due to honest error (131, 49.62). The other causes of retractions include ethical misconduct, ethics violation, conflict of interest and peer-review fraud. Among the countries, the highest number of retractions are credited to the United States (59, 22.34%), China (41, 15.53%) and Malta (30, 11.36%). All the retracted articles were available in the open access mode, with 44 (16.66%) articles funded by different funding organisations. The study reveals that non-funded articles have a higher retraction rate than the funded ones. The study also indicates an inverse relationship between the retraction of articles and journal impact factor, indicating that the higher the impact factor of journals, the lower the retraction rate. There is also a direct relationship between authorship and retractions, i.e. the higher the number of authors, the greater the chances of retraction. Also, the articles having a national collaboration are retracted more than the international ones. The study's main limitation is evaluating a limited set of retractions covered by a single database, which is inherited with limitations compared with other databases. The rush to publish during the pandemic poses threats, which would quickly outdate the study's findings with the outgrowth of retractions. Also, retractions can happen even after a long time, confining the generalisation of results. Retraction of published articles has far-reaching consequences, particularly during the pandemic when a huge influx of publications determines the action-treatment plan for a disease. The study helps to understand the characteristics of retracted articles that may help prevent the dissemination of flawed information during health emergencies. The study highlights the corrective mechanism and its characteristics for scientific misconduct prevalent during COVID-19 pandemic. It provides a thorough understanding of article retractions in the field of COVID-19.
View
... This observation suggests that while collaboration can mitigate misconduct risks, medium-sized teams may struggle with ambiguous roles and responsibilities, potentially leading to oversight issues that larger, more structured teams can avoid. Furthermore, the findings of (Tang et al., 2020) reinforce this complexity, as they noted that collaboration does not inherently increase retraction likelihood, despite a higher prevalence of multi-authored retracted articles. ...
The Retraction Gender Gap: Are Mixed Teams More Vulnerable?
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2025
This study investigates the impact of gender diversity on the retraction of scientific publications. Analyzing a random sample of one million publications, covering 2,645,304 authors, alongside retraction data from RetractionWatch (39,709 publications), we identify key factors influencing publication retractions. Findings indicate that mixed-gender teams are more likely to face retractions than all-male or all-female teams, while individual authors are less prone to retractions. Larger research teams have a lower risk of retraction, whereas medium-sized teams (3–10 authors) experience increased risk. A close look at the reasons associated with retractions reveals some notable differences: male-led publications are often retracted for serious ethical violations, such as data falsification and plagiarism, while female-led publications primarily face procedural errors and updates in rapidly evolving fields. Promoting women to positions of responsibility in mix-collaborations may not only advances gender equity but also the accuracy of the scientific record. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00353
View
... Despite being more prevalent in countries with a strong research background and reputable journals, retractions are not limited to specific fields of study and can be found in diverse areas such as medicine, engineering, and the social sciences [15]. Nonetheless, recent studies on retractions in the Web of Science database have revealed elevated rates in the domains of chemistry, biomedical sciences, and engineering [16,17]. ...
Bibliometric Analysis of Dubious Research
Chapter
Full-text available
  • Jun 2024
Retracted papers are scientific or scholarly works officially withdrawn by the publisher or journal after their initial publication. The primary goal of retractions is to rectify the literature and alert readers about articles containing substantially flawed or erroneous content or data, or due to ethical concerns, rendering reported findings and conclusions unreliable. Retraction notices are typically issued for various reasons, including scientific misconduct, genuine mistakes, or problems with peer review. This chapter provides a systematic analysis of the dubious research identified in the Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analysis was conducted on dubious research to assess the magnitude and influence of the questionable work on the pool of knowledge. The contingency matrix between countries and Web of Science categories of retracted papers reveals correlations between certain domains and the countries. To counter this growing tendency, a multi-pronged approach is essential. Robust policies, vigilant watchdogs, and targeted interventions by institutions are necessary to uphold the integrity of scholarly literature. Academia cannot afford to remain silent in the face of this threat to its credibility.
View
View
Bibliometrics - An Essential Methodological Tool for Research Projects (https://www.intechopen.com/books/1003444, free access)
Book
Full-text available
  • Dec 2024
This book aims to provide the scientific community with a theoretical basis for carrying out bibliometrics and examples of its practical application. Its chapters are written by authors from different parts of the world, who bring diverse and in-depth contributions to the subject. It presents theories and tools for carrying out bibliometrics; methods for incorporating applied elements (patents, actions by companies and governments, etc.) into bibliometric studies to increase the degree of applicability of the projects; discussions on ethics and retractions related to scientific articles; and examples of the application of bibliometric techniques in four areas of knowledge.
View
Over two decades of scientific misconduct in India: Retraction reasons and journal quality among inter-country and intra-country institutional collaboration
Article
  • Nov 2024
Research is a pivotal factor in propelling the progress of any nation forward. However, if it is contaminated by misconduct, it poses a significant threat to the development of the country. Recognizing the importance of genuine research and understanding the ramifications of scientific malpractice is essential for grasping a nation’s trajectory of growth. This study aims to examine various cases of scientific misconduct by Indian researchers. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 3244 retracted publications sourced from the Retraction Watch database. The upward trend in retractions is alarming, although the decreasing duration of retractions indicates proactive measures by journals against misconduct. More than half of the retractions come from private institutions, with fake peer reviews identified as the primary reason for misconduct. This trend could be attributed to the incentivization of quantity over quality in private institutions, which could foster unfair publishing practices. Retractions due to data integrity issues are predominantly observed in public and medical institutions, while retractions due to plagiarism occur in conference proceedings and non-Scopus-indexed journals. Examining retractions resulting from institutional collaborations reveals that 80% originates within the country, while the remaining 20% are international collaborations. In the realm of international collaborations, one third of retractions originate from high-ranking journals, while within domestic collaborations, half of retractions arise from similarly-esteemed publications. In contrast, a significant portion 86% of retractions stem from articles and conference proceedings within domestic collaborations, compared to 87% originating solely from articles in international collaborations. Furthermore, when examining the top journals in terms of retraction frequency within domestic collaborations, they are typically distributed among all categories, with a major proportion in Q1, whereas in international collaborations, they are predominantly found in the Q1 and Q2 categories. This highlights the tendency for retractions associated with international partnerships to occur in prestigious journals, while those linked with domestic collaborations often involve publications of higher to lower quality. The other highlight is that the highest number of retractions occurs when the authors are from the same institutions.
View
View
Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications
Article
  • Jul 2024
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.
View
View
Five ways China must cultivate research integrity
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2019
A swift increase in scientific productivity has outstripped the country’s ability to promote rigour and curb academic misconduct; it is time to seize solutions. A swift increase in scientific productivity has outstripped the country’s ability to promote rigour and curb academic misconduct; it is time to seize solutions. A technician loads mice containers onto a rack at a Cyagen Biosciences Inc. facility in China
View
Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2014
  • eLife
The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately 58millionindirectfundingbytheNIHbetween1992and2012,lessthan158 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of 392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.
View
Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2018
In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.
View
Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016)
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2018
  • SCI ENG ETHICS
This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the "publish or perish" pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators.
View
View
Rethinking retractions
Article
  • Oct 2018
  • SCIENCE
The largest-ever database of retracted articles suggests the burgeoning numbers reflect better oversight, not a crisis in science.
View
Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the rankings
Article
  • Oct 2018
  • SCIENCE
Romania has among the highest retraction rates, thanks partly to oversight by volunteers.
View
View
Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China
Article
  • Jan 2018
This article draws the attention of research managers and policy makers to the issue that to become a science power curtailing misconduct is the daunting challenge that emerging countries simply cannot ignore. Systematic and orchestrated efforts are needed to foster and institutionalize research integrity education among all stakeholders.
View
View