Objective: The Retraction Watch Database is a global platform for retractions in scientific journals. The dataset was utilized for a quantitative analysis aimed at uncovering global insights: regional discrepancies, countries with most retractions, analysis of publishers, and reasons.
Method: In September 2023, the Crossref API, which 47024 registers. Statistical computing analyses were carried out using R software and Excel.
Results: East Asia & Pacific accounted for 26278 cases, Europe & Central Asia 8558, North America 4442, South Asia 3453, Middle East & North Africa 2453, Latin America & Caribbean 641. China had 22178 cases, United States 3730, India 3074, Russia 2491, Germany 977, The UK 888, and South Korea 777. Income group classification, Upper middle-income 26633, High income 13034, Low middle 5589, and Low income 891. Articles were behind paywalls 95%, and coauthors 83%. The publishers associated retractions 'IEEE' 10088, 'Springer' 5993, 'Elsevier' 5709, 'Wiley' 2863, 'Hindawi' 2030, 'Taylor and Francis' 1917. The reasons 'Concerns' (9276 cases) and 'Notice' (6307), 'Duplication' (5888), 'Breach' (4728), 'Error' (4146), 'Fake Peer Review' (3430), 'Euphemisms/misconducts' (2044), 'Data of Retraction/Other Unknown' (2022). Conclusion: The region with the highest East Asia & Pacific driven by China. Upper middle-income countries exhibited the highest number of retractions, Low income had fewer and one might think that partly of the number can be explained by income. The majority of retractions were associated with paywalled articles and reputable publishers, often featuring coauthorship. The reasons were 'Concerns', 'Notice', 'Duplication', 'Breach', 'Error'. Notably, a significant number were attributed to 'Fake Peer Review’.
Smart Citations