Abstract
Reasons underlying retractions of papers authored by the Iran-affiliated highly cited researchers (HCRs) have not been documented. Here, we report that 229 of the Iran-affiliated researchers were listed by the Clarivate Analytics as HCRs. We investigated the Retraction Watch Database and found that, in total, 51 papers authored by the Iran-affiliated HCRs were retracted from 2006 to 2019. Twenty-three of the 229 HCRs (10%) had at least one paper retracted. One of the listed HCRs had 22 papers retracted; 14 of the 23 (60.8%) had only one paper retracted. Among the 51 retracted papers, three had been authored by two female authors. Eight (16.8%) retracted papers had international co-authorships. The shortest and longest times from publication to retraction were 20 and 2610 (mean ± SD, 857 ± 616) days, respectively. Of the 51 papers, 43 (84%) had a single reason for retraction, whereas eight had multiple reasons. Among the 43 papers, 23 (53%) were retracted due to fake peer-review, eight (19%) were duplications, six (14%) had errors, four (9%) had plagiarism, and two (5%) were labelled as “limited or no information.” Duplication of data, which is easily preventable, amounted to 27%. Any publishing oversight committed by an HCR may not be tolerated because they represent the stakeholders of the scientific literature and stand as role-models for other peer researchers. Future policies supporting the Iranian academia should radically change by implementation of educational and awareness programs on publishing ethics to reduce the rate of retractions in Iran.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alberts, B., Cicerone, R. J., Fienberg, S. E., Kamb, A., McNutt, M., Nerem, R. M., et al. (2015). SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420–1422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3847.
Al-Hidabi, M. D. A., & Teh, P. L. (2019). Multiple publications: The main reason for the retraction of papers in computer science. In K. Arai, S. Kapoor & R. Bhatia (Eds.), Advances in information and communication networks, Cham (pp. 511–526). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03402-3_35.
Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2017). Chinese and Iranian scientific publications: Fast growth and poor ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1.
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty
Budd, J. M., Coble, Z., & Abritis, A. (2016). An investigation of retracted articles in the biomedical literature. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301055
Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 280(3), 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296.
Callaway, E. (2016). Publisher pulls 58 articles by Iranian scientists over authorship manipulation. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.nature.com/news/publisher-pulls-58-articles-by-iranian-scientists-over-authorship-manipulation-1.20916
Clarivate Analytics. (2019). Global highly cited researchers 2019 list reveals top talent in the sciences and social sciences. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-highly-cited-researchers-2019-list-reveals-top-talent-in-the-sciences-and-social-sciences-300960223.html.
Clarivate. (2021). Journal impact factor journal citation reports-web of science group. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-reports/.
Docampo, D. (2010). On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems. Scientometrics, 86(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0280-y.
Elsevier. (2021). Publishing ethics for editors. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics.
Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
Gasparyan, A. Y., Nurmashev, B., Seksenbayev, B., Trukhachev, V. I., Kostyukova, E. I., & Kitas, G. D. (2017). Plagiarism in the context of education and evolving detection strategies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(8), 1220–1227. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1220.
Goodall, A. H. (2009). Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. Research Policy, 38(7), 1079–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.04.002.
ISNA News Agency. (2019). Iran ranks 15th in Web of Science in terms of number of articles. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://en.isna.ir/news/98091107445/Iran-ranks-15th-in-Web-of-Science-in-terms-of-number-of-articles.
Jamieson, K. H. (2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(11), 2620–2627. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114.
Janghorban, R., Taghipour, A., Latifnejad Roudsari, R., & Abbasi, M. (2014). Women’s empowerment in Iran: A review based on the related legislations. Global Journal of Health Science, 6(4), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p226.
Kalnins, A. U., Halm, K., & Castillo, M. (2015). Screening for self-plagiarism in a subspecialty-versus-general imaging journal using iThenticate. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 36(6), 1034–1038. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4234.
Kolahi, J., & Abrishami, M. (2013). Contemporary remarkable scientific growth in Iran: House of Wisdom will rise again. Dental Hypotheses, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4103/2155-8213.110177.
Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.3200/joeb.80.3.149-152.
Oransky, I. (2018). Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the rankings. Science, 362(6413), 395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.395.
Rahbari, L. (2016). Women in higher education and academia in Iran. Sociology and Anthropology, 4(11), 1003–1010. https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2016.041107.
Rezaee-Zavareh, M. S., Naji, Z., & Salamati, P. (2016). Creating a culture of ethics in Iran. Science, 354(6310), 296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0019.
Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923.
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One, 8(7), e68397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
Stone, R. (2016). In Iran, a shady market for papers flourishes. Science, 353(6305), 1197. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.353.6305.1197.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687.
Student News Network [Khabarguzari Daneshjoo]. (2020). The number of highly cited scientists of the University of Science and Techology of Iran reached seventeen—a five-fold increase compared to the past six years. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://snn.ir/fa/news/730803.
Supak-Smolcic, V., & Simundic, A. M. (2013). Biochemia Medica has started using the CrossCheck plagiarism detection software powered by iThenticate. Biochemia Medica (Zagreb), 23(2), 139–140. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.016.
Tabnak Professional News Site. (2020). Introduction of 228 superior scientists of Iran. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/683166.
Van Noorden, R. (2020). Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse. Nature, 578(7794), 200–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00335-7.
Wang, T., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6.
Web of Science Group. (2020a). Highly cited researchers. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://recognition.webofsciencegroup.com/awards/highly-cited/2019/methodology/.
Web of Science Group (2020b). Highly cited researchers. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://publons.com/awards/highly-cited/2019/.
Wiley. (2021). Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html.
Wilson, B. (1997). CVI. A retractation, by Mr. Benjamin Wilson, F. R. S. of his former opinion, concerning the explication of the Leyden experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 49, 682–683, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1755.0107
Winn, M. K. (2016). Women in higher education in Iran: How the Islamic revolution contributed to an increase in female enrollment. Global Tides, 10.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the comments and constructive suggestions by our peer-reviewers because they helped us enrich and improve our manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamali, N., Rahimi, F. & Talebi Bezmin Abadi, A. Learning from Retracted Papers Authored by the Highly Cited Iran-affiliated Researchers: Revisiting Research Policies and a Key Message to Clarivate Analytics. Sci Eng Ethics 28, 18 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00368-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00368-3