Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To determine the number of retracted articles and to examine the reasons for retraction within the obstetrics and gynaecology literature. Design: Retrospective review of the PubMed database. Setting: N/A. Population: Obstetrics and gynaecology articles published from indexation until June 2018. Methods: Articles were identified using keywords for retracted articles in obstetrics and gynaecology. Descriptive statistics were performed. Main outcome measures: Incidence of article retraction, the reasons given for retraction, and article demographics. Results: A total of 176 articles were identified with a median time to retraction of 2 years; over three‐quarters were retracted within the last decade (n = 136; 77.3%). The median journal impact factor was 2.5 (range of 0.26–52.67). Subspecialties with the highest number of retractions were gynaecological oncology (n = 76; 43.2%), gynaecology (n = 36; 20.5%), and obstetrics (n = 31; 17.6%). Among 176 first authors, 18 authors (10.2%) had two or more retracted articles. Clinical research articles accounted for approximately one‐half of the retracted articles (n = 87; 49.4%). Among the clinical studies, 10.2% (n = 18) were randomised control trials, 16.5% (n = 29) were prospective trials and 13.1% (n = 23) were retrospective studies. Plagiarism (n = 40; 22.7%) and data falsification (n = 37; 21.0%) were the most common reasons given for retraction. Conclusion: Article retraction within the obstetrics and gynaecology literature is increasing. The most frequently cited reasons for article retractions were plagiarism, errors in data, fabricated results, article duplication, and compromised peer review. Consequences of article retractions to patient care and the scientific community can be significant. The thorough screening of manuscripts prior to publication should be prioritised. Tweetable abstract: The rate of retraction in obstetrics and gynaecology is increasing; the most common reason for retraction is plagiarism.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The most common reasons for retraction in obstetrics and gynecology are plagiarism and data falsification.
“For instance, the most common reasons for retraction in obstetrics and gynecology are plagiarism and data falsification [20].”
From Trustworthiness assessment as an inclusion criterion for systematic reviews—What is the impact on results? (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1 retracted
Retracted articles in surgery journals. What are surgeons doing wrong?
Cassão, B. D., Herbella, F. A. M., Schlottmann, F., & Patti, M. G. (2018) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.015 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
RetractedAn index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669 · see citing works
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770 · see citing works
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109 · Cited by 1,232 · see citing works
Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
Steen, R. G. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.038125 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey
Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0031-1 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Retracted Publications Within Radiology Journals
Rosenkrantz, A. B. (2016) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.15.15163 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Retractions in orthopaedic research
Yan, J., MacDonald, A. G., Baisi, L.-P., Evaniew, N., Bhandari, M., & Ghert, M. A. (2016) · Bone and Joint Research · doi:10.1302/2046-3758.56.bjr-2016-0047 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature
King, E. G., Oransky, I., Sachs, T. E., Farber, A. M., Flynn, D., Abritis, A. J., Kalish, J. A., & Siracuse, J. J. (2017) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.11.033 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Retraction of Neurosurgical Publications: A Systematic Review
Wang, J., Ku, J. C., Alotaibi, N. M., & Rutka, J. T. (2017) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.014 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
A survey of retracted articles in dentistry
Nogueira, T. E., Gonçalves, A. S., Leles, C. R., Batista, A. C., & Costa, L. R. (2017) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Retracted Publications in Orthopaedics
Rai, R., & Sabharwal, S. (2017) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.01116 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Unverifiable Accomplishments and Publications on Applications for Gynecologic Oncology Fellowships
Frumovitz, M., Kriseman, M. L., Sun, C. C., et al. (2012) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31824206e9 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Increasing Transparency Around Peer Review and Research
Chescheir, N. C. (2018) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002712 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Retracted or Withdrawn Publications in Journals Relating to Plastic Surgery
Hwang, K., & Wu, X. (2018) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000004326 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Moulton, L. J., Michener, C. M., Levinson, K. L., Cobb, L. P., Tseng, J. H., & Jernigan, A. M. (2017) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.034 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationMaintaining Academic Integrity and Preventing Scientific Misconduct in Clinical Research
Moulton, L. J., & Falcone, T. (2018) · Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.011 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Meadows A. What does transparent peer review mean and why is it important? [https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/03/transparent- peer-review-mean-important/]. Accessed 30 June 2018. Separating the good guys and gals from the bad MS Marsh Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Linked article This is a mini commentary on LM Chambers et al., pp. 1134-1140 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15689
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data integrity of 35 randomised controlled trials in women' health
Bordewijk, E. M., Wang, R., Askie, L. M., Gurrin, L. C., Thornton, J. G., van Wely, M., Li, W., & Mol, B. W. (2020) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.016 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Integrity of randomized controlled trials: challenges and solutions
Li, W., van Wely, M., Gurrin, L., & Mol, B. W. (2020) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.018 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials
Li, W., Bordewijk, E. M., & Mol, B. W. (2021) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004513 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Weeks, J., Cuthbert, A., & Alfirevic, Z. (2023) · Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · doi:10.1002/cesm.12037 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
When beauty is but skin deep: dealing with problematic studies in systematic reviews
Boughton, S. L., Wilkinson, J., & Bero, L. (2021) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000152 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03962-7 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“…study— and articles retracted in other disciplines (Yan et al. 2016; Bozzo et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2017; Bakker and Riegelman 2018; Faggion et al. 2018; Stricker and Günther 2019; Chambers, Michener, and Falcone 2019; Coudert 2019; Mena et al. 2019) inconsistently followed the COPE guidelines.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialKhan, K. S., Fawzy, M., & Chien, P. F. W. (2023) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.14837 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties
Madhugiri, V. S., Nagella, A. B., & Uppar, A. M. (2021) · Acta Neurochirurgica · doi:10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z · Cited by 19 · see citing works
INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials
Wilkinson, J., Heal, C., Flemyng, E., Antoniou, G. A., Aburrow, T., Alfirevic, Z., Avenell, A., Barbour, V., Berghella, V., Bishop, D. V. M., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.09.03.25334905 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
How should we assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials?
Wilkinson, J., & Tovey, D. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111670 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Au, L. S., Qu, L., Nielsen, J., Ge, Z., Gurrin, L. C., Mol, B. W., & Wang, R. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111672 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chambers, L., Michener, C., & Falcone, T.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation Cleveland OH USA
- Corresponding author
- Chambers, LM
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-04-21
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1134-1140
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W3150609869
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 18.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- retraction, plagiarism, data falsification, research misconduct, gynecologic oncology, peer review, manuscript screening, research integrity, duplicate publication, journal impact factor, clinical trial design, publication ethics
- MeSH terms
- Gynecology, Humans, Obstetrics, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Retrospective Studies, 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
