Year : 2021  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 179-188

A scoping review of retracted publications in anesthesiology

1 Department of Women, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
2 Department of Public, Clinical and Preventive Medicine, Medical Statistics Unit, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
3 Department of General and Specialized Medicine, “San Giuseppe Moscati” Hospital, Avellino, Italy
4 Abteilung für Anästhesie, Intensivmedizin, Schmerzmedizin/Palliativmedizin - Zentrum für Schmerzmedizin, Weaningzentrum, CURA Krankenhaus, Betriebsstätte der GFO-Kliniken Bonn, Schülgenstr. 15, Bad Honnef, Deutschland, Italy
5 Division of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
6 Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Medicine, “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Marco Cascella
Division of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCCS, Fondazione G. Pascale, Via Mariano Semmola, 80131, Naples
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_1110_20

Rights and Permissions

Context: Fraudulent publication is a scourge of scientific research. Objectives: This scoping review was aimed at characterizing retracted publications for fraud or plagiarism in the field of anesthesia. Does the reputation of the journal (Quartile and Impact Factor, IF) protect the reader from the risk of having the manuscript he read withdrawn for fraud/plagiarism? Methods/Design: This scoping review was planned following the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. Data sources: PubMed and the Retraction Watch Database ( Study selection: All types of publications retracted. Data extraction: Year, first author nationality, journal name, journal category, IF, Quartile, H index. Data analysis: The association with Quartile and IF was investigated. Results: No significant association between retraction of papers published in no-Quartile journals and retractions published in journals placed in the highest quartile. Conclusions: The quality of the surveillance in paper submission is not higher in journals of the first Quartile than in journals not placed in other Quartiles. (The protocol was prospectively registered in the Open Science Framework

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded288    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal