↓ Skip to main content

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A survey of retracted articles in dentistry
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Túlio Eduardo Nogueira, Andréia Souza Gonçalves, Cláudio Rodrigues Leles, Aline Carvalho Batista, Luciane Rezende Costa

Abstract

Publication retraction is a mechanism to preserve the scientific literature against publications that contain seriously flawed or erroneous data, redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, and other features that compromise the integrity of science. An increase in the occurrence of retractions in recent years has been reported. Nevertheless, there is scarce information on this topic concerning publications in dentistry and related specialties. Thus, this study aimed to investigate retracted papers published in dental journals. Data collection included an exploratory search in PubMed and a specific search in SCImago Journal Rank indexed journals, complemented by the cases reported on the Retraction Watch website and in PubMed. All 167 dental journals included in SCImago were searched for identification of retracted articles up to March 2016. The selected retracted articles and their corresponding retraction notices were recorded and assessed for classification according to the reason for retraction and other additional information. Forty of the 167 journals scrutinised at SCImago (23.9%) had at least one retracted article, and four additional journals were identified from the Retraction Watch website. A total of 72 retracted found were retracted for the reasons: redundant publication (20.8%), plagiarism (18.1%), misconduct (13.8%), overlap (13.6%) and honest error (9.7%). Higher number of retractions were reported in those journals with cites/doc <2.0-n = 49 (74.2%). The types of studies were mainly laboratory studies (34.7%), case reports (22.2%) and review articles (13.9%). The approach to ethical problems in papers published in dental scientific journals is still incipient; retractions were mostly due to the authors' malpractice and were more frequently related to journals with less impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Librarian 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Computer Science 8 19%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Philosophy 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,043,416
of 18,461,354 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#273
of 3,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,841
of 275,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,461,354 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them