Cited by 27Academic integrity and plagiarismscientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications

Open access
Kuroki, Toshio, Ukawa, Akira·2018·Accountability in Research

Abstract

Both the scientific community and the general public have expressed concern over scientific misconduct. The number of retracted articles has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about .02% of the 2 million articles published each year. Retraction of publications available in large public databases can be analyzed as an objective measure for scientific misconduct and errors. In this project, we analyzed retractions of scientific publications using the Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases. We found that a power law is applicable to distributions of retracting authors and retracted publications with exponents of about -.6 and -3.0, respectively. Application of a power-law model for retracted publications implies that retraction is not a random event. Analysis of the retraction distributions suggests that a small fraction (1-2%) of retracting authors with ≧5 retractions are responsible for around 10% of retraction. The probabilities for their repeating retraction are calculated using a statistical model: 3-5% likelihood of repeat retraction for authors with a single retraction at five years after the latest retraction and 26-37% for authors with five retractions at five years after the latest retraction. By focusing on those with repeated retractions, this analysis could contribute to identification of measures to reduce such repetition of retractions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08989621.2018.1449651

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Kuroki, T., & Ukawa, A.
Affiliations
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP)
  • RIKEN (JP)
Corresponding author
Kuroki, Toshio
Venue
Accountability in Research
Published
2018-03-21
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
212-219
ISSN
  • 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5815
OpenAlex
W2791971732
Cited by
27
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Funders
support
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
retracted article, research misconduct, power-law distribution, research integrity, Web of Science, PubMed, publication errors
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Probability, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Bibliometrics, Scientific Misconduct, Editorial Policies, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review