Cited by 47Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine

Chauvin, Anthony, De Villelongue, Cedric, Pateron, Dominique, Yordanov, Youri·2019·European Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

The objective of this study was to characterize retracted publications in emergency medicine. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all retracted publications in the field of emergency medicine. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text of search results. Data from all included studies were then independently extracted. We identified 28 retraction notes. Eleven (39%) articles were published by authors from Europe. The oldest retracted article was published in 2001. The 28 retracted papers were published by 22 different journals. Two authors were named on multiples retractions. The median impact factor of journals was 1.03 (0.6-1.9). Almost all studies were available online [26/28 (93%)], but only 40% had watermarking on the article. The retraction notification was available for all articles. Three (11%) retraction notices did not clearly report the retraction reasons, and most retraction notices were issued by the editors [14 (56%)]. The most frequent retraction reasons were plagiarism [eight (29%)], duplicate publication [three (11%)] and overlap [two (2%)]. Retracted articles were cited on average 14 times. In most cases, the retraction cause did not invalidate the study's results [17 (60%)]. The most common reason for retraction was related to a misconduct by the authors. These results…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mej.0000000000000491

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data.

    “between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data, 8-12”

    From Evaluating the Accuracy of scite, a Smart Citation Index (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chauvin, A., De Villelongue, C., Pateron, D., & Yordanov, Y.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Geriatrics Department, Hôpital Bretonneau
  • Sorbonne Université (FR)
Corresponding author
Yordanov, Youri
Venue
European Journal of Emergency Medicine
Published
2019-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
19-23
ISSN
0969-9546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2749837437
Cited by
47
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
retracted article, emergency medicine, retraction reasons, plagiarism, duplicate publication, research misconduct, research integrity, journal impact factor
MeSH terms
Emergency Medicine, Humans, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Duplicate Publications as Topic, Plagiarism, Scientific Misconduct

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