Objectives: The present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. Material and methods: This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018. Results: 180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four-year period (2014–2018), when compared with 2009–2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher-related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable. Conclusions: Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.

Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review

Rapani A.;Lombardi T.;Berton F.;Del Lupo V.;Di Lenarda R.;Stacchi C.
2020-01-01

Abstract

Objectives: The present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. Material and methods: This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018. Results: 180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four-year period (2014–2018), when compared with 2009–2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher-related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable. Conclusions: Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.
31-mar-2020
Pubblicato
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cre2.292
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
cre2.292.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.14 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.14 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2966594
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact