Cancer and oncology researches are stated as being in a replication and trust crisis (Errington et al., 2021; Teixeira da Silva, 2022). Plagued by issues related to replication, fraud, misconduct, paper mill-derived research and cross-publication forgeries, as well as failed peer review and editorial handling, the number of retracted papers related to cancer research has continued to climb (Pantziarka & Meheus, 2019; Retraction Watch, 2022). A salient example,
The objective of this study was to appreciate some metrics- and indexing-related factors of papers that have been retracted from an indexed cancer journal,
The
We identified 23 retractions in
DOI | Reason(s) for retraction1 | Explicit author-induced? | # Hospital affiliations** |
---|---|---|---|
Irreproducible results | Yes | 4/5 | |
Concerns/issues about data/results; paper mill* | Yes | 4/5 | |
Concerns/issues about data/image; investigations/objection by third party | No | 1/1 | |
Concerns/issues about data/image; investigations/objection by third party; error in text | No | 1/1 | |
Image falsification/fabrication; miscommunication by third party; original data not provided; paper mill* | No | 4/4 | |
Concerns/issues about third party involvement; image duplication; data falsification/fabrication; miscommunication by third party | No | 4/6 | |
Breach of policy by author; original data not provided; paper mill | No | 1/1 | |
Data/text duplication; paper mill* | No | 5/9 | |
Data/text duplication; paper mill* | No | 1/1 | |
Data/text duplication; paper mill* | No | 1/2 | |
Data/text duplication; paper mill* | No | 2/3 | |
Breach of policy by author; paper mill | No | 1/1 | |
Misconduct by third party; paper mill | Yes | 2/2 | |
Unreliable results; paper mill | No | 1/1 | |
Breach of policy by author; paper mill | No | 1/1 | |
Breach of policy by author; paper mill | No | 2/2 | |
Paper mill | No | 2/2 | |
Paper mill | No | 5/5 | |
Paper mill | No | 2/4 | |
Breach of policy by author; paper mill | No | 2/4 | |
Concerns/issues about data/image; original data not provided; paper mill | No | 3/3 | |
Concerns/issues about data/image; original data not provided; paper mill | No | 2/3 | |
Concerns/issues about authorship/data/image/results/third party involvement; paper mill* | No | 1/2 |
Reasons, and wording of reasons, modified from the original statements at Retraction Watch after close examination of the reasons and the papers/websites.
* The term “paper mill” does not appear in the original retraction notice.
** All affiliations from all papers were from China.
In addition to the association between paper mill-derived cancer research and affiliations that are Chinese hospitals, the use of web-based emails is also characteristic (Else & Van Noorden, 2021; Liu & Chen, 2021; Teixeira da Silva, 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Corresponding authors’ emails were missing from 4/23 papers on the publisher’s website, one paper had three corresponding authors, but none had institutional emails, 12/21 (57%) emails were @163.com (5/21 were @126.com; 4/21 were @sina.com), and 9/21 (43%) emails had prefixes or names that were unrelated to the corresponding author’s name (Suppl. Table 1).
The
According to Web of Science Core Collection Citations, the 23 retracted papers accumulated (until March 23, 2023) 287 citations (253 according to Scopus and 365 according to Google Scholar). At the same time, these papers continue to receive citations after the retraction: 54 citations according to Web of Science Core Collection, 54 according to Scopus, and 77 according to Google Scholar. Some retracted cancer papers continue to accrue positive (i.e., supporting) citations, although these tend to wane after the second year, and dip to near-zero citations after about a decade (Hamilton, 2019). Just over 55% of 12,231 Web of Science-indexed retracted papers published between 1981 and 2020 were cited at least once, about a quarter of which were self-citations (Sharma, 2021). Sharma (2021) also noted that
We believe that more detailed information in the RNs would have made them more informative. Missing information from a RN, incomplete RNs, or RNs that are opaque or unclear do not benefit academia, and are a poor instrument of information (Teixeira da Silva & Vuong, 2022; Xu & Hu, 2022). In our view, a complete and informative RN – irrespective of its size – would have all of the following components to be both informative and transparent, holding the relevant parties accountable: 1) global appreciation of each concern and how it impacts the integrity of the paper, or its data; 2) an understanding of how the concerns came to light; 3) dates of any and all communication between all relevant parties; 4) outcomes of queries and – where possible – perspectives and responses of authors and editors.
This research note has a limitation, having focused on only one cancer-related journal (