Research misconduct in hospitals is spreading:A bibliometric analysis of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals

Purpose: The number of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals is increasing, which has raised much concern. The aim of this study is to analyze the retracted papers from university-affiliated hospitals in China’s mainland from 2000 to 2021. Design/methodology/approach: Data for 1,031 retracted papers were identified from the Web of Science Core collection database. The information of the hospitals involved was obtained from their official websites. We analyzed the chronological changes, journal distribution, discipline distribution and retraction reasons for the retracted papers. The grade and geographic locations of the hospitals involved were explored as well.Findings: We found a rapid increase in the number of retracted papers, while the retraction time interval is decreasing. The main reasons for retraction are plagiarism/self-plagiarism(n=255), invalid data/images/conclusions(n=212), fake peer review(n=175) and honesty error(n=163). The disciplines are mainly distributed in oncology(n=320), pharmacology & pharmacy(n=198) and research & experimental medicine(n=166). About 43.8% of the retracted papers were from hospitals affiliated with prestigious universities. Research limitations: This study fails to differentiate between retractions due to honest error and retractions due to research misconduct. We believe that there is a fundamental difference between honest error retractions and misconduct retractions. Another limitation is that authors of the retracted papers have not been analyzed in this study.Practical implications: This study provides a reference for addressing research misconduct in Chinese university-affiliated hospitals. It is our recommendation that universities and hospitals should educate all their staff about the basic norms of research integrity, punish authors of scientific misconduct retracted papers, and reform the unreasonable evaluation system.Originality/value: Based on the analysis of retracted papers, this study further analyzes the characteristics of institutions of retracted papers, which may deepen the research on retracted papers and provide a new perspective to understand the retraction phenomenon.

Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature

Purpose: To address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the underreporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature.Design/methodology/approach: A four-step approach is used:(1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy;(2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature;(3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and(4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature.Findings: This review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances(1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or(2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the ‘premiere’ biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literaturewill have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database.Research limitations: The main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives.Practical implications: Almost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse.Originality/value: This review has examined a much wider range of technical and nontechnical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.