Nature | Research Highlights: Social Selection

High retraction rates raise eyebrows

Article tools

Based on data from Altmetric.com. Altmetric is supported by Macmillan Science and Education, which owns Nature Publishing Group.

Amid a wave of recent retractions, researchers are taking to social media to discuss a perennial favourite: a three-year-old paper looking at the relationship between a journal's impact factor and its retraction frequency (F. C. Fang et al. Infect. Immun. 79, 3855–3859; 2011). The 2011 report proposed a “retraction index”, a measure of the likelihood that a paper in a given journal will eventually be pulled from the literature. The authors looked at articles published from 2001 to 2010 in 17 journals and plotted the journals' retraction indexes against their impact factor. The result was clear: the higher the impact factor, the higher the retraction index. “You know 'high impact' journals? All that means is that work is more likely to be retracted,” tweeted Jon Tennant, who studies palaeontology at Imperial College London, earlier this month. David Basanta, a cancer researcher at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, responded on Twitter: “A case could be made that more people try to replicate the results.” See go.nature.com/f7b6ud for more.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
513,
Pages:
283
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/513283f

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments

Commenting is currently unavailable.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.