Correction of the scientific production: publisher performance evaluation using a dataset of 4844 PubMed retractions

Background

Withdrawal of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers, especially in the conditions of the ever-increasing trend of publishing activity in the medical field. The market volume and the business model justify publishers’ involvement in the post-publication quality control(QC) of scientific production. The limited information about this subject determined us to analyze retractions and the main retraction reasons for publishers with many withdrawn articles. We also propose a score to measure the evolution of their performance. The data set used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020.

Methods

We have analyzed the retraction notes and retraction reasons, grouping them by publisher. To evaluate performance, we formulated an SDTP score whose calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time(ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and clarity of retraction notes), precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors).

Results

The 4844 withdrawn articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of withdrawn articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than ten withdrawn articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed journals withdrew at least one article. Only 10.5% of the withdrawal notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of articles withdrawn in 2020, in the first 11 places finding, as expected, some big publishers. Retraction reasons analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), 10 and 42 months (plagiarism & overlap).

The SDTP score shows, between 2018 and 2020, an improvement in QC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score.

Conclusions

Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.