'Scientific misconduct' cited in more than half of retracted radiology publications
More than half of retracted publications relating to radiology are pulled due to “scientific misconduct,” according to an updated analysis published recently in Academic Radiology.
Experts arrived at this conclusion after searching the Retraction Watch Database for articles completed between 1984 and 2021 under the topic of “Radiology/Imaging.” This resulted in a total of 192 retracted publications—a number that the authors of the study conceded appeared to be growing in more recent years.
“The increased availability of online articles since the 2000s may have improved public control, which, together with a larger commitment of editors and researchers, could also have led to a larger number of retractions,” explained the paper’s co-authors Robert M. Kwee MD, PhD, from the Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging at University Medical Center Groningen, and Thomas C. Kwee MD, PhD, of the Department of Radiology at Zuyderland Medical Center in the Netherlands. “As such, the rise in retractions could potentially be interpreted as growing scientific integrity rather than an increase in scientific misconduct.”
Scientific misconduct was, however, cited in 55.7% of the studied retractions. The authors explained that this could be due to the pressures—whether financial or career driven—of “publish or perish.” This, in turn, could deteriorate the quality of the work, as well as the effort put into it, they suggested. While the authors ultimately put the scientific integrity of research on the experts/authors responsible for it, they conceded that more oversight might be a worthwhile cause.
“Imposing sanctions could be a way to avoid misconduct,” Kwee and Kwee wrote. “However, there is still no global clarity on which sanctions may be appropriate.”
Other common reasons for retraction included duplication of an article (7.1%), plagiarism (6.8%), concerns about data (5.4%), investigation by company/institution (4.5%) and forged authorship (4.0%).
Articles published in China accounted for the most retractions at 31.3%. The United States, Japan and South Korea followed at 12.5%, 7.3% and 6.3%, respectively.
The authors shared that retractions started to increase in frequency around the year 2000. This could be explained by an increase in access to publications available online and does not necessarily indicate a red flag, but rather that newer data and/or research has been developed or augmented.
The study abstract can be viewed here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She joined Innovate Healthcare in 2021 and has since put her unique expertise to use in her editorial role with Health Imaging.