Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database;Retratações em medicina geral e interna em um indexador científico de alta visibilidade

Sao Paulo Medical Journal

Volumn 134, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 74-78

  Almeida, Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues de ^a   Catelani, Fernanda ^a   Fontes Pereira, Aldo José ^a   De Souza Gave, Nárrima ^b  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^b Central Hospital of Rio de Janeiro   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bibliographic; Bibliometrics; Databases; Journal impact factors; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTINGENCY TABLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FRAUD; INTERNAL MEDICINE; PROBABILITY; PUBLISHING; RISK FACTOR; WEB OF SCIENCE; WRITING; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; ETHICS; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PLAGIARISM; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84962006749     PISSN: 15163180     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2014.00381601     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Oransky MA. The first-ever English language retraction (1756)? Retraction Watch. Available from: http://retractionwatch.com/2012/02/27/the-first-ever-english-language-retraction-1756/.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
2. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2.
3. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028-33.
4. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Michigan State University. Available from: www.cse.msu.edu/~alexliu/plagiarism.pdf. Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
5. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e44118.
6. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(4):249-53.
7. Stretton S, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, et al. Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(10):1575-83.
8. 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.
9. Crossref.org. CrossCheck. Available from: www.crossref.org/ crosscheck/index.html. Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
10. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Introduction to the guidelines for handling plagiarism complaints. Available from: www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/plagiarism.html. Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
11. Thomson Reuters. Web of Knowledge. Available from: https://webofknowledge.com.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
12. Thomson Reuters. Journal Citation Reports. Available from: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientificresearch/research-management-and-evaluation/journal-citationreports.html.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
13. Vinkler P. The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. New York: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.; 2010.
14. Thompson Reuters. Science Watch. Top 20 countries in all fields, 2001-August 31, 2011. Available from: sciencewatch.com/articles/ top-20-countries-all-fields-2001-august-31-2011. Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
15. Hermes-Lima M, Santos NC, Alencastro AC, Ferreira ST. Whither Latin America? Trends and challenges of science in Latin America. IUBMB Life. 2007;59(4-5):199-210.
16. Chuang KY, Huang YL, Ho YS. A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics. 2007;72(2):201-212. Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-007-1721-0. Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
17. Li Z, Ho YS.Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate contingent valuation research. Scientometrics. 2008;75(1): 97-110. Available from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FYuh-Shan_Ho%2Fpublication%2F242916319_Use_of_citation_per_publication_as_an_indicator_to_evaluate_contingent_valuation_research%2Flinks%2F0f31753c0f394499e3000000.pdf&ei=jSEHVahhsvuwBNr1gYAJ&usg=AFQjCNF2Sr91YlBcxlsUNPI9-vCkM3iS6Q&bvm=bv.88198703,d.cWc.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
18. Butler L. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy. 2003;32(1):143-155. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733302000070.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
19. Guan J, Gao X. Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics. 2008;75(2):357-379. Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-007-1871-0.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
20. Rinia EJ, van Leeuwen Th N, van Vuren HG, van Raan AFJ. Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy. 2001;30(3):357-361. Available from: http://www.cwts.nl/tvr/documents/avr-interdiscpeer-researchpolicy.pdf.Accessed in 2015 (Mar 16).
21. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun. 2011;79(10):3855-9.