Characteristics of retracted biomedical research papers from Latin American institutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2025059006328Palavras-chave:
Fraud, Scientific Misconduct, Ethics, Latin AmericaResumo
OBJECTIVE: To characterize retractions of biomedical research papers that had a least one author affiliated with a Latin American (LATAM) institution.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of research papers published in scientific journals focusing on the field of biomedical research and identified by means of the Retraction Watch database. The retracted articles identified were required to have at least one author whose institutional affiliation was a LATAM country. Data were collected on the authors’ countries and institutional affiliations, the reason for retraction, dates of publication and retraction, indexing, journal quartile and impact factor. Reasons for retraction were categorized into three major groups, i.e., scientific misconduct, error, and not specified.
RESULTS: According to Retraction Watch, 181 papers were retracted across 1987–2024 which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina were the countries that had a retraction rate above 1 per 10 thousand papers throughout the study period. The principal reason for retraction was scientific misconduct (63.0%) followed by honest error (21.5%). The main causes of retraction due to scientific misconduct were ethical and legal problems (33.1%), followed by fabrication/falsification (20.2%).
CONCLUSION: The number of retractions in some LATAM countries, mainly due to scientific misconduct, highlights the need to strengthen ethical practices in research. Future initiatives should focus on developing and evaluating effective strategies to prevent misconduct and promote scientific integrity.
Downloads
Referências
1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Scientific misconduct, expressions of concern, and retraction [Internet]. 2016 [Cited May 25, 2023]. Available from https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.html
2. Shaw D. The quest for clarity in research integrity: a conceptual schema. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(4):1085-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2
3. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(42):17028-33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
4. Shi X, Abritis A, Patel RP, Grewal M, Oransky I, Ross JS, et al. Characteristics of retracted research articles about COVID-19 vs other topics. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(10):e2234585-e. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34585
5. Al-Ghareeb A, Hillel S, McKenna L, Cleary M, Visentin D, Jones M, et al. Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;81:8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.01.013
6. Wadhwa RR, Rasendran C, Popovic ZB, Nissen SE, Desai MY. Temporal trends, characteristics, and citations of retracted articles in cardiovascular medicine. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2118263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18263
7. Santos-D’amorim K, Correia AEGC, Miranda MKFO, Santa-Cruz P. Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil. Transinformação. 2021;33:e210001. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202133e210001
8. Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, Zicker F, Novaes MRCG, Oliveira CM, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214272
9. Dal-Ré R. Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. Med Clín. 2020;154(4):125-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcle.2019.04.033
10. Amos KA. The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014;102(2):87-91. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005
11. Freijedo-Farinas F, Ruano-Ravina A, Pérez-Ríos M, Ross J, Candal-Pedreira C. Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years. Scientometrics. 2024;129(5):2867-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04992-7
12. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Rey-Brandariz J, Mourino N, Ravara S, Aguiar P, et al. Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal. Account Res. 2023;30(8):725-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2080549
13. Almeida RMVR, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SMR. Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbeandatabases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1447-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5
14. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Rey-Brandariz J, Ruano-Ravina A. Retraction of publications in Spain: A retrospective analysis using the Retraction Watch database. Med Clín. 2015;22:1447-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2024.07.003
15. RStudio Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022 [Cited June 1, 2023]. Available from: https://posit.co/
16. Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter J. 1695. 2006.
17. Herrera-Añazco P, Fernandez-Guzman D, Barriga-Chambi F, Benites-Meza JK, Caira-Chuquineyra B, Benites-Zapata VA. Retraction of health science articles by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review. Dev World Bioeth. 2025;25(1):5-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12439
18. Tudela J, Aznar J. ¿Publicar y/o morir? El fraude en la investigación y las publicaciones científicas. Persona Bioética. 2013;17(1):12-27. https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2013.17.1.1
19. Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Paul-Hus A, et al. Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(4):1967-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4
20. Ashkenazi I, Olsha O. Authorship disputes in scholarly biomedical publications and trust in the research institution. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2023;14(3):e0015. https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10503
21. DORA. San Francisco Declaration on research assessment 2012 [Internet]. 2012 [Cited Jun 1, 2023]. Available from https://sfdora.org/read/
22. CoAra. Agreement on reforming research assessment 2022 [Internet]. 2022 [Cited Jun 1, 2023]. Available from https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf
23. Utrecht U. Why UU is missing in the THE ranking - News - Utrecht University 2023 [Internet]. 2023 [Cited Oct 10, 2023]. Available from https://www.uu.nl/en/news/why-uu-is-missing-in-the-the-ranking
24. González Parias CH, Londoño Arias JA, Giraldo Mejía WA. Evolución de la producción científica en América Latina indexada en Scopus 2010-2021. Bibliotecas [Internet]. 2022 [cited Apr 10, 2025];18(3):107-21. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8740019
25. Rodrigues ML, Morel CM. The Brazilian dilemma: increased scientific production and high publication costs during a global health crisis and major economic downturn. mBio. 2016;7(3). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00907-16
26. Marcus AA. Firing, publishing ban, 15 retractions for author who ‘defrauded’ co-authors in pay-to-publish scheme 2022 [Internet]. 2022 [cited Apr 10, 2025]. Available from https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/30/firing-publishing-ban-15-retractions-for-author-who-defrauded-co-authors-in-pay-to-publish-scheme/
27. Dal-Ré R, Ayuso C. For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature. Account Res. 2021;28(5):280-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479
28. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Fernández E, Ramos J, Campos-Varela I, Pérez-Ríos M. Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(11):e003719. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003719
29. Wang Z, Shi Q, Zhou Q, Zhao S, Hou R, Lu S, et al. Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:137-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.013
30. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):547-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0
31. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices 2017 [Internet]. COPE; 2017 [Cited Oct 22, 2024]. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
32. Perković Paloš A, Roje R, Tomić V, Marušić A. Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe. Account Res. 2024;31(6):620-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2163632
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Direitos autorais (c) 2025 Jorge Andres Ramos-Castaneda, Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Mónica Pérez-Ríos, Ana Teijeiro, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Guadalupe García
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
