↓ Skip to main content

Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 218)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.2014.00381601
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues de Almeida, Fernanda Catelani, Aldo José Fontes-Pereira, Nárrima de Souza Gave, Almeida, Renan Moritz Varnier Rodrigues de, Catelani, Fernanda, Fontes-Pereira, Aldo José, Gave, Nárrima de Souza

Abstract

Increased frequency of retractions has recently been observed, and retractions are important events that deserve scientific investigation. This study aimed to characterize cases of retraction within general and internal medicine in a high-profile database, with interest in the country of origin of the article and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the retraction was made. This study consisted of reviewing retraction notes in the Thomson-Reuters Web of Knowledge (WoK) indexing database, within general and internal medicine. The retractions were classified as plagiarism/duplication, error, fraud and authorship problems and then aggregated into two categories: "plagiarism/duplication" and "others." The countries of origin of the articles were dichotomized according to the median of the indicator "citations per paper" (CPP), and the IF was dichotomized according to its median within general and internal medicine, also obtained from the WoK database. These variables were analyzed using contingency tables according to CPP (high versus low), IF (high versus low) and period (1992-2002 versus 2003-2014). The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for plagiarism/duplication. A total of 86 retraction notes were identified, and retraction reasons were found for 80 of them. The probability that plagiarism/duplication was the reason for retraction was more than three times higher for the low CPP group (RR: 3.4; 95% CI: [1.9-6.2]), and similar results were seen for the IF analysis. The study identified greater incidence of plagiarism/duplication among retractions from countries with lower scientific impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 40%
Professor 2 20%
Librarian 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Linguistics 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Philosophy 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,661,948
of 14,641,855 outputs
Outputs from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#11
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,177
of 237,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,641,855 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 218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 237,133 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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