Annals of Library and Information Studies

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Retractions in India since Independence : A Multifaceted Analysis for 75 Years through Data Carpentry


Affiliations
1 Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India
2 University Research Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India
3 Senior Research Fellow, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India
 

This study aims to explore the nature of article retractions in India for a time frame of 75 years (1947–2021) by developing a comprehensive primary dataset of 1,376 retracted items, and then merging the dataset as developed with an array of external datasets by deploying data carpentry methods and techniques available in OpenRefine, an open-source data wrangling software. This value addition leads to exploring many new angles of study related to retraction in India, like gender distribution, geospatial distribution, institutional distribution, subject distribution in retraction, relations between journal quality and retraction, identification of serial offenders, relations between citation and retraction, and more importantly, reasons for retraction. It discovers many facts about retraction in India and attempts to represent the findings using a few next-generation visualization techniques. The major findings include the following: retraction in India is growing exponentially, and we are now the 4th highest in retraction on a global scale; the majority of the retracted items are published in quality journals in terms of quartile, impact factor, H-Index, and CiteScore; retracted items are distributed in both close-access and open-access source titles; most retracted items are able to fetch citations (mean citation 19.73), including recent citations; a considerable number of retracted items are authored by serial offenders; the retraction map of India includes the majority of the states and union territories; elite educational and research institutes are equally responsible for retraction, along with not-so-known institutes; text manipulation is still the most visible reason for retraction in India, but data manipulation, and image manipulation are increasing rapidly. It also finds that a few cases of retraction are simply due to a lack of awareness on the part of the scholars.

Keywords

Retraction, Research Ethics, Data Carpentry.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • crossref-retractions, (2019), Available at https://github.com/open-retractions/crossref-retractions (Accessed on 25 September 2022).

  • bionode-ncbi, (2022), Available at https://github.com/bionode/bionode-ncbi (Accessed on 24 September 2022).

  • Open retractions, (2022), Available at https://github.com/open-retractions/open-retractions (Accessed on 30 September 2022).

  • The Gazette of India: Extraordinary [PART III—SEC. 4], (31 July 2018), Available at https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/7771545_academic-integrity-Regulation2018.pdf (Accessed on 20 September 2022).

  • Promotion of academic integrity and excellence and prevention of plagiarism, Available at https://www.aicte-india.org/sites/default/files/Promotion of academic integrity and excellence and Prevention of Plagiarism.PDF (Accessed on 01 September 2022).

  • The Retraction Watch Database. New York: The Center for Scientific Integrity. 2018. ISSN: 2692-465X. Available at http://retractiondatabase.org/ (Accessed on 10 September 2022).

  • Retraction Watch, Publisher retracts 350 papers at once, Retraction Watch Blog, (2022), Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2022/02/23/publisher-retracts-350-papers-at-once/ (Accessed on 11 September 2022).

  • Cabanac G, Labbe C and Magazinov A, Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science, Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06751 (Accessed on 12 September 2022). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

  • Vuong Q H, La V P, Ho M T, Vuong T T and Ho M T, Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019, Science Editing, 7 (1) (2020) 34–44. DOI: 10.6087/kcse.187

  • He T, Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010, Scientometrics, 96 (2) (2013) 555–561. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0906-3

  • Bar-Ilan J and Halevi G, Temporal characteristics of retracted articles, Scientometrics, 116 (3) (2018) 1771–1783. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2802-y

  • Nath S B, Marcus S C and Druss B G, Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?, The Medical Journal of Australia, 185 (3) (2006) 152–154. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x

  • Li G, Kamel M, Jin Y, Xu MK, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MA and Thabane L, Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 11 (2018) 39–47. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S151745

  • Grieneisen M L and Zhang M, A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature, von Elm E, editor. PLoS ONE, 7 (10) (2012) e44118. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118

  • Fanelli D, Costas R, Fang F C, Casadevall A and M. Bik E, Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications, Science and Engineering Ethics, (2019) 771-789. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7

  • Feng L, Yuan J and Yang L, An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions, Scientometrics, 125 (2) (2020) 1445–1457. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03702-3

  • Tang L, Hu G, Sui Y, Yang Y and Cao C, Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration?, (2020). Available at https://core.ac.uk/display/326244732?source=3 (Accessed on 15 September 2022). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1

  • Mongeon P and Lariviere V, Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers, Journal of the Association for Information Science Technology, 67 (3) (2016) 535-542. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23421

  • Rathmann J and Rauhut H, Teams prevent misconduct: A study of retracted articles from the Web of Science, (2019). Available at https://core.ac.uk/display/237469952?source=3 (Accessed on 14 September 2022). DOI: 10.5167/uzh-176716

  • Sharma K, Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?, (2020). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13091 (Accessed on 16 September 2022).

  • Fanelli D, Costas R and Lariviere V, Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity, PLoS ONE, 10 (6) (2015). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

  • Budd J M, Coble Z and Abritis A, An Investigation of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53 (1) (2016) 1-9. DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301055

  • Dinh L, Sarol J, Cheng Y Y, Hsiao T K, Parulian N and Schneider J, Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, (2019). DOI: 10.1002/pra2.35

  • Teixeira da Silva J A and Bornemann-Cimenti H, Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?, Scientometrics, 110 (1) (2017) 365–370. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9

  • Joob B and Wiwanitkit V, Post retraction citations in context: a comment, Scientometrics, 115 (3) (2018) 1291–1292. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2713-y

  • Heibi I and Peroni S, A qualitative and quantitative citation analysis toward retracted articles: a case of study, (2020). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.11475 (Accessed on 17 September 2022).

  • Frampton G, Woods L and Scott D A, Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice, PLoS ONE, 16 (10) (2021) e0258935. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258935

  • Ribeiro M D and Vasconcelos S M R, Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries, Scientometrics, 114 (2) (2018) 719–734. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6

  • Bhatt B, A Multi-perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences, Scientometrics, (2020). DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.29.063016

  • Amos K A, The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102 (2) (2014) 87–91. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005

  • Elango B, Kozak M and Rajendran P, Analysis of retractions in Indian science, Scientometrics, 119 (2) (2019) 1081–1094. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y

  • Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S and Kleinert S, Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE), Croatian Medical Journal, 50 (6) (2009) 532-535. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532

  • Steen R G, Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?, Jounal of Medical Ethics, 37 (2) (2011) 113–117. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.038125

  • Santamaria L and Mihaljevic H, Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services, PeerJ Computer Science, 4 (2018) e156. DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.156

  • Mukhopadhyay P, Mitra R and Mukhopadhyay M, Library Carpentry: Towards a New Professional Dimension (Part I – Concepts and Case Studies), SRELS Journal of Information Management, 58 (2) (2021) 67–80. DOI: 10.17821/srels/2021/v58i2/159969

  • Steen R G, Casadevall A and Fang F C, Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?, PLOS ONE, 8 (7) (2013) e68397. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397

  • van Dalen H P and Henkens K, Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey, Journal of the American Society for Information Science Technology, 63 (7) (2012) 1282–1293. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22636

  • Van Noorden R, Science publishing: The trouble with retractions, Nature, 478 (2011) 26–28. DOI: 10.1038/478026a

  • Cokol M, Lossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R and Rzhetsky A, How many scientific papers should be retracted?, EMBO Reports, (2007) 422-423. DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400970

  • Aspura M K Y I, Noorhidawati A and Abrizah A, An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes?, Scientometrics, 115 (3) (2018) 1315–1328. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2720-z

  • International Center for Academic Integrity, The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, ICAI: Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, (2021), Available at https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf (Accessed on 27 September 2022).

  • Retraction Watch, Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons, Retraction Watch, (2018), Available at https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/retraction-watch-database-user-guide-appendix-b-reasons/ (Accessed on 05 September 2022


Abstract Views: 89

PDF Views: 60




  • Retractions in India since Independence : A Multifaceted Analysis for 75 Years through Data Carpentry

Abstract Views: 89  |  PDF Views: 60

Authors

Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India
Mondrita Mukhopadhyay
University Research Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India
Mustak Ahmed
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Library and Information Science, Kalyani University, West Bengal, India

Abstract


This study aims to explore the nature of article retractions in India for a time frame of 75 years (1947–2021) by developing a comprehensive primary dataset of 1,376 retracted items, and then merging the dataset as developed with an array of external datasets by deploying data carpentry methods and techniques available in OpenRefine, an open-source data wrangling software. This value addition leads to exploring many new angles of study related to retraction in India, like gender distribution, geospatial distribution, institutional distribution, subject distribution in retraction, relations between journal quality and retraction, identification of serial offenders, relations between citation and retraction, and more importantly, reasons for retraction. It discovers many facts about retraction in India and attempts to represent the findings using a few next-generation visualization techniques. The major findings include the following: retraction in India is growing exponentially, and we are now the 4th highest in retraction on a global scale; the majority of the retracted items are published in quality journals in terms of quartile, impact factor, H-Index, and CiteScore; retracted items are distributed in both close-access and open-access source titles; most retracted items are able to fetch citations (mean citation 19.73), including recent citations; a considerable number of retracted items are authored by serial offenders; the retraction map of India includes the majority of the states and union territories; elite educational and research institutes are equally responsible for retraction, along with not-so-known institutes; text manipulation is still the most visible reason for retraction in India, but data manipulation, and image manipulation are increasing rapidly. It also finds that a few cases of retraction are simply due to a lack of awareness on the part of the scholars.

Keywords


Retraction, Research Ethics, Data Carpentry.

References