Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Analysis of retracted articles in the ophthalmic literature

Eye volume 35, pages 3384–3388 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the frequency and reason for retraction of ophthalmology publications.

Methods

Two independent reviewers retrieved data from PubMed and Medline using appropriate keywords. Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann–Whitney U test. A total of 83 articles were selected for the analysis between 1994 and 2019. Articles were retracted after a median of 1 year (IQR 4.0), and 55 (66.3%) articles were published in the year 2010 or after.

Results

Forty-eight (57.8%) articles were original articles. The most common subspecialties involved were basic science (51.8%), followed by vitreoretinal diseases (13.3%) and cornea and external diseases (7.1%). Fraudulent data were the cause of retraction in 22 (26.5%) articles, and 14 articles (16.87%) were retracted because of plagiarism. Thirteen articles (15.7%) were retracted due to errors in the data calculations, and ten (12.04%) were found to be duplicate submissions of previously published articles by the same author, while five articles (6.02%) had authorship disputes. Thirty-nine (46.9%) retracted articles were published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 2. The median number of citations received by the retracted articles was 2.0 (IQR 9.0).

Conclusions

We conclude that the number of retractions in the ophthalmic literature have increased since 2010, though relatively limited information is available on the retracted articles. There is a need to strictly follow the current guidelines for providing the reasons for retraction and displaying retraction notices both in PubMed and on the journal websites.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Methodology outline.
Fig. 2: Type of retracted articles.

References

  1. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun. 2011;79:3855–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

  3. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics. 2011;37:113–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37:249–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics. 2011;37:688–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elia N, Wager E, Tramèr MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e85846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? J Med Ethics. 2012;38:228–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Uvea, Medical and Vision Research Foundations, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India

    Parthopratim Dutta Majumder

  2. Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Department of Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Rajiv Raman

  3. Department of Vitreo-retina, Maxivision Superspeciality Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, India

    Tandava Krishnan

  4. Glaucoma Services, Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India

    Ronnie George

Authors
  1. Parthopratim Dutta Majumder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajiv Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tandava Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronnie George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajiv Raman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dutta Majumder, P., Raman, R., Krishnan, T. et al. Analysis of retracted articles in the ophthalmic literature. Eye 35, 3384–3388 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01438-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01438-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links