Scholarlink

Objective <p>To investigate why retractions in academic literature have risen substantially, leading to rising concerns about research reliability and integrity. While retraction trends have been explored across disciplines, urology-specific factors remain underexamined. This study investigates 292 retracted urological publications from 2014 to 2024, focusing on open-access journals to analyze how publishing models influence retraction trends.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective analysis of retracted urological publications was conducted using the PubMed database. The study employed 84 MeSH search terms to identify articles and categorize them by research type, journal impact factor, citation count, geographical distribution, and retraction reasons. Statistical analyses were performed to assess associations between retraction characteristics.</p> Results <p>The most common reason for retraction (90.4%) was discrepancies in data availability or research description, with systematic publication manipulation accounting for 5.1%. The majority of retractions (84.5%) originated from China. Journals with higher impact factors exhibited longer recall times for retractions but no significant difference in citation count at recall.</p> Conclusion <p>This study highlights the increasing frequency of retractions in urology and identifies key factors influencing these trends. Geographic disparities, open-access models, and journal impact factors play significant roles. Addressing research integrity requires improved editorial oversight, standardized reporting guidelines, and enhanced detection of publication misconduct.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analyzing retraction trends in urology: a comprehensive study over the last decade

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月25日

查看全文
  • Julio Yanes,
  • Daniel Ajabshir,
  • Aravindh Rathinam,
  • Archan Khandekar,
  • Jonathan Katz,
  • Robert Marcovich,
  • Hemendra N. Shah

摘要

Objective

To investigate why retractions in academic literature have risen substantially, leading to rising concerns about research reliability and integrity. While retraction trends have been explored across disciplines, urology-specific factors remain underexamined. This study investigates 292 retracted urological publications from 2014 to 2024, focusing on open-access journals to analyze how publishing models influence retraction trends.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of retracted urological publications was conducted using the PubMed database. The study employed 84 MeSH search terms to identify articles and categorize them by research type, journal impact factor, citation count, geographical distribution, and retraction reasons. Statistical analyses were performed to assess associations between retraction characteristics.

Results

The most common reason for retraction (90.4%) was discrepancies in data availability or research description, with systematic publication manipulation accounting for 5.1%. The majority of retractions (84.5%) originated from China. Journals with higher impact factors exhibited longer recall times for retractions but no significant difference in citation count at recall.

Conclusion

This study highlights the increasing frequency of retractions in urology and identifies key factors influencing these trends. Geographic disparities, open-access models, and journal impact factors play significant roles. Addressing research integrity requires improved editorial oversight, standardized reporting guidelines, and enhanced detection of publication misconduct.