Science Editing

Original Article

Bibliometric characteristics of retracted publications in pediatrics research: a systematic review: Zhi-Yi Yang, Li-Li Yang; Received August 19, 2024 Accepted December 11, 2024 Published online December 11, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.351 [Epub ahead of print]

24 View
5 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
In recent years, the number of retractions in biomedical literature has increased. Analyses of retracted publications can provide important information on the characteristics of retractions and may help reduce this trend. This study aimed to systematically analyze the time, source, citations, and reasons for retraction of pediatric research papers.
Methods
A systematic review of retracted articles related to pediatrics was performed in PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception through December 31, 2023. Excluded from the review were articles unrelated to pediatric studies, conference proceedings, non-English articles, duplicates, and articles that could not be identified. The data extracted and analyzed included the title, publication year, retraction year, country, journal, impact factor, the party who raised the retraction, the reason for retraction, citation count, and the authors of the articles.
Results
The interval between publication and retraction ranged from 0 to 45 years, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2023. China and the United States had the most retractions, and China had the highest rate of retraction. The proportion of retractions from China increased over time. Several journals published by Hindawi had many retractions compared to other journals. The most frequent reasons were publication issues, errors, and fraud/fabrication.
Conclusion
This study provides a comprehensive overview of retracted articles in pediatric research. Our findings suggest that it is important to scrutinize the process of research and publication, to identify and counter research misconduct, and to make the instructions, procedures, and outcomes of publication more transparent for researchers, publishers and regulators.

Reviews

How to review and assess a systematic review and meta-analysis article: Seung-Kwon Myung; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):119-126. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.306

3,767 View
347 Download

Abstract PDF: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become central in many research fields, particularly medicine. They offer the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine and support the development and revision of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with specific diseases and conditions. This review summarizes the concepts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides guidance on reviewing and assessing such papers. A systematic review refers to a review of a research question that uses explicit and systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis that combines individual results on the same research question to estimate the common or mean effect. Conducting a meta-analysis involves defining a research topic, selecting a study design, searching literature in electronic databases, selecting relevant studies, and conducting the analysis. One can assess the findings of a meta-analysis by interpreting a forest plot and a funnel plot and by examining heterogeneity. When reviewing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, several essential points must be considered, including the originality and significance of the work, the comprehensiveness of the database search, the selection of studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, subgroup analyses by various factors, and the interpretation of the results based on the levels of evidence. This review will provide readers with helpful guidance to help them read, understand, and evaluate these articles.

An algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines: Soo Young Kim; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):13-18. Published online November 14, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.287

3,150 View
287 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

A reporting guideline can be defined as “a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” A reporting guideline outlines the bare minimum of information that must be presented in a research report in order to provide a transparent and understandable explanation of what was done and what was discovered. Many reporting guidelines have been developed, and it has become important to select the most appropriate reporting guideline for a manuscript. Herein, I propose an algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines. This algorithm was developed based on the research design classification system and the content presented for major reporting guidelines through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. This algorithm asks 10 questions: “is it a protocol,” “is it secondary research,” “is it an in vivo animal study,” “is it qualitative research,” “is it economic evaluation research,” “is it a diagnostic accuracy study or prognostic research,” “is it quality improvement research,” “is it a non-comparative study,” “is it a comparative study between groups,” and “is it an experimental study?” According to the responses, 16 appropriate reporting guidelines are suggested. Using this algorithm will make it possible to select reporting guidelines rationally and transparently.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the Journal Impact Factor, 4.4 for the first time on June 28, 2023
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 21. CrossRef
Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search