|
| 基于撤稿观察数据库的麻醉学论文撤稿情况分析 |
| Analysis of the retraction papers in anesthesiology field based on Retraction Watch database |
| |
| DOI：10.12089/jca.2025.12.011 |
| 中文关键词: 撤稿观察数据库 麻醉学 撤稿 科研诚信 人工智能 |
| 英文关键词: Retraction Watch database Anesthesiology Retraction Research integrity Artificial intellgence |
| 基金项目:江苏省社科应用研究精品工程科技伦理（科研诚信）专项课题（24SLA-05）；江苏省期刊协会期刊出版研究课题（2024JSQKB33）；南京鼓楼医院新技术发展立项项目（XJSFZLX202495） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1135 |
| 全文下载次数: 313 |
| 中文摘要: |
目的：系统分析麻醉学撤稿论文的流行病学特征，为科研诚信风险预警提供循证依据。
方法：检索撤稿观察（RW）数据库，纳入截至2024年12月31日所有标注“麻醉学”的论文撤稿记录。采用双人独立提取字段，对撤稿数量、发表年份、撤稿年份、撤稿论文类型、撤稿原因、撤稿论文归属出版商、撤稿论文归属期刊、撤稿时滞、撤稿论文归属国家及作者等10个指标进行描述性统计与交叉表分析。
结果：共纳入972篇撤稿论文。发表高峰为2022年（115篇），撤稿高峰为2023年（173篇）。临床研究类论文占比最高（50.6%），其次为研究性论文（26.0%）。撤稿原因前5位依次为数据问题（610篇）、作者身份异常（547篇）、伪造/篡改（312篇）、结果不可信（227篇）及结论异常（201篇）；其他还包括同行评议问题、论文工厂、计算机辅助生成内容、重复发表和图像问题。出版商集中度显著：Elsevier、Springer、Wolters Kluwer与Hindawi 4家占77.9%。期刊分布中，Journal of Clinical Anesthesia（114篇）、Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia（83篇）及Anesthesia & Analgesia（82篇）位列前三，均为Q1区期刊。撤稿时滞0～13 311 d，中位数1 677.5 d（4年），52.2%的撤稿发生在发表后5年内。撤稿论文归属国家层面，日本（369篇）、德国（215篇）与中国（214篇）居前。
结论：麻醉学论文撤稿呈现“临床导向、集中爆发、多源失信”特点，数据与作者问题仍是主因，但新型失信手段如论文工厂、AI伪造等快速涌现。高影响力出版商与期刊成为撤稿“重灾区”。建议期刊强化统计审查与作者身份核验，国际合作项目应建立跨国失信作者共享黑名单，以遏制撤稿高发态势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
Objective: To map the epidemiologic landscape of retracted publications in anesthesiology and provide evidence-based guidance for research-integrity risk early-warning.
Methods: All retractions tagged “anesthesiology” in the Retraction Watch database (up to 31 December 2024) were downloaded. After duplicate screening, 2 reviewers independently extracted 10 predefined fields. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were applied to examine retraction volume, publication year, retraction year, article type, retraction reason, publisher, journal, time-to-retraction, country, and responsible authors.
Results: A total of 972 retracted articles were identified. Publication peaked in 2022 (n = 115) and retraction in 2023 (n = 173). Clinical research articles accounted for 50.6%, followed by experimental studies 26.0 %. The 5 leading retraction reasons were data irregularities (n = 610), authorship anomalies (n = 547), fabrication/falsification (n = 312), unreliable results (n = 227), and conclusion anomalies (n = 201). Other issues include peer review problems, paper factories, computer-aided generated content, duplicate publication, and image problems. Publisher concentration was high: Elsevier, Springer, Wolters Kluwer, and Hindawi collectively comprised 77.9%. The three most affected journals—Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (n = 114), Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (n = 83), and Anesthesia & Analgesia (n = 82)—all rank in the first quartile (Q1). Median time-to-retraction was 1 677.5 days (range 0-13 311 days), and 52.2% of retractions occurred within 5 years after publication. Country-level retractions were dominated by Japan (n = 369), Germany (n = 215), and China (n = 214).
Conclusion: Retractions in anesthesiology are clinically oriented, cluster in recent years and stem from multiple misconduct sources. Although traditional data and authorship problems remain dominant, novel misconduct modalities (paper mills and AI forgery) are rapidly emerging. High-impact publishers and journals are disproportionately affected. Journals should reinforce statistical scrutiny and author identity verification, while international consortia are urged to create a cross-border blacklist of integrity-violating authors to curb the escalating retraction rate. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
