Investigating the Scientometric Characteristics and Publication Trends of Retracted Psychology Documents in the Web of Science

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty member of Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

2 M.A. student of Scientometrics, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

10.22034/jmpr.2024.63149.6359

Abstract

Retraction is a necessary method for correcting scientific texts and informing audiences about significant errors in scientific publications. The aim of the current study is to examine the scientometric characteristics of retracted psychology publications indexed in the Web of Science citation database and to identify their publication trends. Therefore, using a quantitative approach and survey method, 382 retracted documents in the field of psychology were studied through an advanced search in the Web of Science database, without considering a specific time period, employing a census method.Characteristics such as publication and citation trends of retracted documents in the field of psychology were identified based on the year, different writing languages, and common document types, funding agencies, and the most productive publishers and journals. Additionally, the significance of the relationship between the number of retracted documents and the scientometric indices of each journal was measured using the Spearman test. According to the obtained results , it is clear that in 2020, the highest number of retracted documents was 31. Furthermore, based on the resulted model fit to the data, this number is expected to double by 2055. Moreover, a high percentage of documents funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for The Central Universities have been retracted. Top publishers, such as Elsevier, Sage, and Wiley, along with the journal Frontiers in Psychology, have the highest number of retracted documents in the field of psychology. Additionally, the results indicate that the number of retracted documents in a journal has a significant relationship with the total number of published documents, the number of citations, and the normalized Eigenfactor. Most of these documents are published as research articles in English and are available in open access. Therefore, based on the findings of this research, it is necessary for science policymakers to continue investigating other aspects of retracted documents in the field of psychology while preventing the publication of false or misleading data in the field of psychology to avoid similar cases in the future.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

پوروشسب، ساناز. (1397). آسیب‌شناسی و بررسی مقالات بین‌المللی سلب اعتبار شدۀ ایرانی در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی اسکوپوس، گوگل‌اسکولار و ریسرچ گیت بین سال‌های 1997 تا 2017. علوم و فنون مدیریت اطلاعات، 4(2)، 137-156.
حمدی­پور، افشین؛ عطاپور، هاشم؛ و میرپناهی، شکیلا. (1401). تحلیلی بر روند سلب اعتبار مدارک علمی نمایه شده در پایگاه اطلاعاتی وب­آوساینس طی سال‌های 2000-2020. مجله علم‌سنجی کاسپین، 9(1): 82-97.
رجب­زاده عصارها، امیرحسین؛ فهیمی­فر، سپیده؛ و نقشینه، نادر. (1402). دلایل سلب اعتبار مقالات ایرانی‌ها: مرور نظام‌مند. تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 57(3)، 73-94.
قربی، علی؛ و فهیمی­فر، سپیده. (1399). ابعاد و الگوهای همکاری آثار سلب‌اعتبارشده به‌عنوان مصداق سوءرفتار پژوهشی در سطح بین‌المللی و ایران. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 6(1)، 149-172.
مرادی، شیما؛ جنوی، المیرا؛ و کاظمی، حمید. (1396). مطالعه تطبیقی سوءرفتار علمی در جهان. فصـلنامه مطالعـات ملـی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات، 27(4)، 76-94.
Ajiferuke, I., & Adekannbi, J. O. (2020). Correction and retraction practices in library and information science journals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(1), 169-183.
Azoulay, P., Bonatti, A., & Krieger, J. L. (2017). The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Research Policy, 46(9), 1552-1569.
Behera, P. K., Jain, S. J., & Kumar, A. (2024). Examining retraction counts to evaluate journal quality in psychology. Current Psychology, 1-8.
Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I. S., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2016). Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: Incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Science and engineering ethics, 22, 1063-1072.
Craig, R., Cox, A., Tourish, D., & Thorpe, A. (2020). Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?. Research policy, 49(4), 103930.
Didier, E., & Guaspare-Cartron, C. (2018). The new watchdogs’ vision of science: A roundtable with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) and Brandon Stell (PubPeer). Social studies of science, 48(1), 165-167.
Elango, B., Kozak, M., & Rajendran, P. (2019). Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1081-1094.
Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS medicine, 10(12), e1001563.
Huh, S., Kim, S. Y., & Cho, H. M. (2016). Characteristics of retractions from Korean medical journals in the KoreaMed database: A bibliometric analysis. PloS one, 11(10), e0163588.
Jan, R., & Zainab, T. (2018, February). The impact story of retracted articles altmetric it!. In 2018 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies in Libraries and Information Services (ETTLIS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Khademizadeh, S., Danesh, F., Esmaeili, S., Lund, B., & Santos-d’Amorim, K. (2023). Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends. Accountability in Research, 1-16.
Kocyigit, B. F., Akyol, A., Zhaksylyk, A., Seiil, B., & Yessirkepov, M. (2023). Analysis of retracted publications in medical literature due to ethical violations. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(40): e324.
Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific reports, 3(1), 3146.
Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: a case study. PLoS medicine, 7(8), e1000318.
Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ open, 6(11), e012047.
Ozair, A., Bhat, V., & Omama, M. (2021). Retractions and withdrawals in neurology literature: a 2020 analysis of the Retraction Watch Database (2668). Neurology, 96(15_supplement), 2668.
Panahi, S., & Soleimanpour, S. (2023). The landscape of the characteristics, citations, scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in hematology. Accountability in Research, 30(7), 363-378.
Rapani, A., Lombardi, T., Berton, F., Del Lupo, V., Di Lenarda, R., & Stacchi, C. (2020). Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review. Clinical and experimental dental research, 6(4), 383-390.
Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 136-139.
Shepperd, M., & Yousefi, L. (2023). An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science. Plos one, 18(5), 1-17.
Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017). A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2225-2236.
Simpkins, A. (2012). System identification: Theory for the user, (ljung, l.; 1999) [on the shelf]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 95-96.
Smits, P. A., & Denis, J. L. (2014). How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: an international overview. Implementation Science, 9(28), 1-12.
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?. PLoS ONE, 8(7): e68397.
Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology. Zeitschrift für psychologie, 227(1), 53–63
Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Hồ, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2020). Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Science Editing, 7(1), 34-44.
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023—a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479-481.
Wang, J., Ku, J. C., Alotaibi, N. M., & Rutka, J. T. (2017). Retraction of neurosurgical publications: a systematic review. World neurosurgery, 103, 809-814.
Journal of Modern Psychological Researches
Volume 19, Issue 76
January 2025
Pages 108-126

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 August 2024
  • Revise Date: 15 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 18 November 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics