Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions
Authors: Fábio Zicker
Rafaelly Stavale
Maria Rita Carvalho Garbi Novaes
Dirce Guilhem
João Antônio Martins Galvão
César Messias de Oliveira
Graziani Izidoro Ferreira
Journal: PLoS ONE (2019)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: Research integrity; Retractions; Medical and life sciences; Brazilian academic institutions; Chronological trend
Affiliations: Department of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Federal District, Brazil., Department of Statistics, Telecomunicações do Brasil - Telebrás, Brasília, Federal District, Brazil., Center for Technological Development in Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Brasília, Federal District, Brazil., Department of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Health Sciences Education and Research Foundation - ESCS/Fepecs, Brasília, Federal District, Brazil., Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract:  Background: Measures to ensure research integrity have been widely discussed due to the social, economic and scientific impact of research integrity. In the past few years, financial support for health research in emerging countries has steadily increased, resulting in a growing number of scientific publications. These achievements, however, have been accompanied by a rise in retracted publications followed by concerns about the quality and reliability of such publications. Objective: This systematic review aimed to investigate the profile of medical and life sciences research retractions from authors affiliated with Brazilian academic institutions. The chronological trend between publication and retraction date, reasons for the retraction, citation of the article after the retraction, study design, and the number of retracted publications by author and affiliation were assessed. Additionally, the quality, availability and accessibility of data regarding retracted papers from the publishers are described. Methods: Two independent reviewers searched for articles that had been retracted since 2004 via PubMed, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) and Google Scholar databases. Indexed keywords from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS) in Portuguese, English or Spanish were used. Data were also collected from the Retraction Watch website (www.retractionwatch.com). This study was registered with the PROSPERO systematic review database (CRD42017071647). Results: A final sample of 65 articles was retrieved from 55 different journals with reported impact factors ranging from 0 to 32.86, with a median value of 4.40 and a mean of 4.69. The types of documents found were erratum (1), retracted articles (3), retracted articles with a retraction notice (5), retraction notices with erratum (3), and retraction notices (45). The assessment of the Retraction Watch website added 8 articles that were not identified by the search strategy using the bibliographic databases. The retracted publications covered a wide range of study designs. Experimental studies (40) and literature reviews (15) accounted for 84.6% of the retracted articles. Within the field of health and life sciences, medical science was the field with the largest number of retractions (34), followed by biological sciences (17). Some articles were retracted for at least two distinct reasons (13). Among the retrieved articles, plagiarism was the main reason for retraction (60%). Missing data were found in 57% of the retraction notices, which was a limitation to this review. In addition, 63% of the articles were cited after their retraction. Conclusion: Publications are not retracted solely for research misconduct but also for honest error. Nevertheless, considering authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, this review concluded that most of the retracted health and life sciences publications were retracted due to research misconduct. Because the number of publications is the most valued indicator of scientific productivity for funding and career progression purposes, a systematic effort from the national research councils, funding agencies, universities and scientific journals is needed to avoid an escalating trend of research misconduct. More investigations are needed to comprehend the underlying factors of research misconduct and its increasing manifestation. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This is an interesting manuscript on a topic of central importance to science: questioning the reliability of published literature, as based on retractions. As the results demonstrate, manuscripts may get retracted for a number of reasons, ranging from plagiarism to errors. I have, however, found a rather central mistake in the results. It was detected by chance, and may be indicative of further issues to be detected. This is relative to the author Zuben CJV, mentioned on Table 2. The retracted paper was:  Gomes L, Von Zuben CJ. Forensic entomology and main challenges in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. Neotrop Entomol. 2006; [cited 2017 dec]; 35(1):1u201311. [retracted in Neotrop Entomol. 2006; 35(1):1u201311]. Available from: https: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed 17352063 pmid:17352063 Point (i): these authors were not affiliated at USP as given in Table 2, but at UNESP at the time of that retraction. Point (ii): The author Zuben CJV had other retractions, publicised at the time by the Retraction Watch. These include papers not included in the present analysis, such as: https: doi.org 10.1006 jtbi.1996.0320 https: doi.org 10.1590 S0074-02761997000200025 Perhaps double-checking the entries for completeness and exactness would fix some other mistakes. Nonetheless, these are likely minor and of no great impact for the general conclusion. , 
 This article is very interesting, especially to understand the reasons for misconduct within Brazilian literature, since developing countries may have different reasons regarding other countries. However, I noticed a somewhat ambiguous or wrong classification: some articles in Table 3 are categorized as image plagiarism as a reason for retraction, but when accessing, for example, DOI and retraction, the reason was image manipulation (e.g., https: diabetes.diabetesjournals.org content 65 4 1128.long). This does not appear to change the findings or the number of articles with retractions, but perhaps the conclusion  most of the findings is due to plagiarism . In this case, perhaps the conclusions lie between plagiarism and image manipulation. , 
 Dear Pubpeer, We appreciate the attention and interest in our research brought to research integrity considering Brazilian context and the comments from Pubpeer users. We are reviewing the data of our work to better address each point raised. We are also opened to make corrections, if needed. Thank you very much. ,