Advances in radiation oncology · 2026
Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heesen Philip, Fritsak Maksym, Kretzschmar Lena, Heusel Astrid, Ciobanu-Caraus Olga, Ahmadsei Maiwand, Thormann Maximilian, Ehret Felix, Andratschke Nicolaus, Zips Daniel, Guckenberger Matthias, Roohani Siyer, Christ Sebastian M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Retractions in the scientific literature undermine research integrity and can have lasting effects on clinical and academic practices. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze retracted publications in the recent radiation oncology literature and to identify trends in study characteristics, reasons for retraction, and postretraction citation patterns.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Retracted studies in radiation oncology were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Retraction Watch, from May 1, 2017, to September 27, 2024, and June 16, 2025, respectively. Studies were included if they had a publicly available retraction notice. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, retraction reasons, and postretraction citation patterns. Descriptive statistics were used for data synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 108 retracted studies were identified and analyzed. Most retracted studies were laboratory/experimental studies (39.8%). Median impact factor of retracted studies was 2.4 (IQR, 1.8-3.5). The primary reason for retraction was misconduct (77.8%), followed by methodological errors (13.9%) and authorship issues (5.6%). Retraction notices were issued primarily by publishers (50.0%). Most retracted articles (93.5%) were marked with a watermark, and retractions were indexed in PubMed in all cases. Median time from publication to retraction was 1.6 years (IQR, 1.0-3.2 years). Median number of citations after retraction was 1 (IQR, 0-3).
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that retractions in radiation oncology remain generally rather rare events. However, prevalence of misconduct-related retractions in radiation oncology is high, and citations may persist after retraction. These findings emphasize the need for further enhanced oversight and clearer retraction policies to foster high-quality and sound research practices.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Retracted studies in radiation oncology were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Retraction Watch, from May 1, 2017, to September 27, 2024, and June 16, 2025, respectively. Studies were included if they had a publicly available retraction notice. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, retraction reasons, and postretraction citation patterns. Descriptive statistics were used for data synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 108 retracted studies were identified and analyzed. Most retracted studies were laboratory/experimental studies (39.8%). Median impact factor of retracted studies was 2.4 (IQR, 1.8-3.5). The primary reason for retraction was misconduct (77.8%), followed by methodological errors (13.9%) and authorship issues (5.6%). Retraction notices were issued primarily by publishers (50.0%). Most retracted articles (93.5%) were marked with a watermark, and retractions were indexed in PubMed in all cases. Median time from publication to retraction was 1.6 years (IQR, 1.0-3.2 years). Median number of citations after retraction was 1 (IQR, 0-3).
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that retractions in radiation oncology remain generally rather rare events. However, prevalence of misconduct-related retractions in radiation oncology is high, and citations may persist after retraction. These findings emphasize the need for further enhanced oversight and clearer retraction policies to foster high-quality and sound research practices.