How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer



Palabras clave:

PubPeer, Bibliometrics, Retractions, Plagiarism, Data manipulation, Editorial notices, Journals, Journal impact, Scholarly communication, Publishing fraud


The aim of this article is to explore the editorial response of journals to research articles that may contain methodological errors or misconduct. A total of 17,244 articles commented on in PubPeer, a post-publication peer review site, were processed and classified according to several error and fraud categories. Then, the editorial response (i.e., editorial notices) to these papers were retrieved from PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and PubMed to obtain the most comprehensive picture. The results show that only 21.5% of the articles that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the journal. This percentage would climb to 34% for 2019 publications. This response is different between journals, but cross-sectional across all disciplines. Another interesting result is that high-impact journals suffer more from image manipulations, while plagiarism is more frequent in low-impact journals. The study concludes with the observation that the journals have to improve their response to problematic articles.


Aspura, M. Yanti-Idaya; Noorhidawati, Abdullah; Abrizah, Abdullah (2018). “An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes?”. Scientometrics, v. 115, n. 3, pp. 1315-1328.

Bik, Elisabeth M.; Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C. (2016). “The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications”. mBio, v. 7, n. 3, e00809-16.

Bik, Elisabeth M.; Fang, Ferric C.; Kullas, Amy L.; Davis, Roger J.; Casadevall, Arturo (2018). “Analysis and correction of inappropriate image duplication: The molecular and cellular biology experience”. Molecular and cellular biology, v. 38, n. 20, e00309-18.

Blatt, Michael R. (2015). “Vigilante science”. Plant physiology, v. 169, n. 2, pp. 907-909.

Bosch, Xavier; Hernández, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M.; Doti, Pamela; Marušić, Ana (2012). “Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals”. PloS one, v. 7, n. 12, e51928.

Brookes, Paul S. (2014). “Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action”. PeerJ, n. 2, e313.

Budd, John M; Sievert, Mary Ellen; Schultz, Tom R. (1998). “Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications”. Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 280, n. 3, pp. 296-297.

Budd, John M.; Sievert, Mary-Ellen; Schultz, Tom R.; Scoville, Caryn (1999). “Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine”. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, v. 87, n. 4, pp. 437-443.

Campos-Varela, Isabel; Villaverde-Castañeda, Ramón; Ruano-Raviña, Alberto (2021). “Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category”. Gaceta sanitaria, n. 34, pp. 430-434.

Cokol, Murat; Iossifov, Ivan; Rodríguez-Esteban, Raúl; Rzhetsky, Andrey (2007). “How many scientific papers should be retracted?”. EMBO reports, v. 8, n. 5, pp. 422-423.

Cokol, Murat; Ozbay, Fatih; Rodríguez-Esteban, Raúl (2008). “Retraction rates are on the rise”. EMBO reports, v. 9, n. 1, p. 2.

Corbyn, Zoë (2012). “Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions”. Nature news, n. 490, 21.

Da-Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira (2018a). “The issue of comment ownership and copyright at PubPeer”. Journal of educational media & library sciences, v. 55, n. 2, pp. 181-191.

Da-Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira (2018b). “PubMed Commons closure: a step back in post-publication peer review”. AME medical journal, v. 30, n. 3.

Da-Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira (2022). “A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges”. Journal for general philosophy of science (in press).

Decullier, Evelyne; Huot, Laure; Samson, Géraldine; Maisonneuve, Hervé (2013). “Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study”. BioMed Central research notes, n. 6, e238.

De-Moya-Anegón, Félix (2020). “Research evaluation entities cause a shift of publication to Q1 journals”. Profesional de la información, v. 29, n. 4, e290431.

Elia, Nadia; Wager, Elizabeth; Tramèr, Martin R. (2014). “Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: A descriptive cross-sectional study”. PLoS one, v. 9, n. 1, e85846.

Faggion Jr., Clovis-Mariano; Ware, Robert S.; Bakas, Nikolaos; Wasiak, Jason (2018). “An analysis of retractions of dental publications”. Journal of dentistry, n. 79, pp. 19-23.

Fang, Ferric C.; Steen, R. Grant; Casadevall, Arturo (2012). “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 109, n. 42, pp. 17028-17033.

Gasparyan, Armen-Yuri; Ayvazyan, Lilit; Akazhanov, Nurbek A.; Kitas, George D. (2014). “Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact”. Croatian medical journal, v. 55, n. 1, pp. 61-72.

Lei, Lei; Zhang, Ying (2018). “Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997-2016)”. Science and engineering ethics, v. 24, n. 5, pp. 1409-1420.

Martin, Ben R. (2012). “Does peer review work as a self-policing mechanism in preventing misconduct: a case study of a serial plagiarist”. In: Mayer, Tony; Steneck, Nicholas. Promoting research integrity in a global environment, pp. 97-114. ISBN: 978 9814340977

Marusic, Ana; Katavic, Vedran; Marusic, Matko (2007). “Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats”. Medicine and law, n. 26, pp. 545-566.

Moylan, Elizabeth C.; Kowalczuk, Maria K. (2016). “Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central”. British Medical Journal open, v. 6, n. 11, e012047.

Nath, Sara B.; Marcus, Steven C.; Druss, Benjamin G. (2006). “Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?” Medical journal of Australia, v. 185, n. 3, pp. 152-154.

Neale, Anne-Victoria; Northrup, Justin; Dailey, Rhonda; Marks, Ellen; Abrams, Judit (2007). “Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct”. Science and engineering ethics, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 5-24.

Ortega, José-Luis (2021). “The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions”. Learned publishing, v. 34, n. 2, pp. 164-174.

Ortega, José-Luis (2022). “Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 73, n. 5, pp. 650-670.

PubPeer (2015). Vigilant scientists. PubPeer.

Redman, Barbara K.; Yarandi, Hossein N.; Merz, Jon F. (2008). “Empirical developments in retraction”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 34, n. 11, pp. 807-809.

Resnik, David B.; Dinse, Gregg E. (2013). “Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 39, n. 1, pp. 46-50.

Smith, Jane; Godlee, Fiona (2005). “Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct”. British medical journal, v. 331, n. 7511, pp. 245-246.

Steen, R. Grant (2011). “Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 37, n. 2, pp. 113-117.

Steen, R. Grant; Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C. (2013). “Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?”. PloS one, v. 8, n. 7, e68397.

Stricker, Johanes; Günther, Armin (2019). “Scientific misconduct in psychology”. Zeitschrift für psychologie, v. 227, n. 1, pp. 53-63.

Torny, Didier (2018). “PubPeer: Vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review”. In: Peere international conference on peer review, Peerecost network, Mar 2018, Rome, Italy.

Tripathi, Manorama; Sonkar, Sharad Kumar; Kumar, Sunil (2019). “A cross sectional study of retraction notices of scholarly journals of science”. Desidoc journal of library & information technology, v. 39, n. 2, pp. 74-81.

Vuong, Quan-Hoang (2020). “The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019”. Learned publishing, v. 33, n. 2, pp. 119-130.

Wager, Elizabeth (2007). “What do journal editors do when they suspect research misconduct”. Medicine and law, v. 26, n. 3, pp. 535.

Wager, Elizabeth (2014). “How should journal editors respond to cases of suspected misconduct?”. Journal of microbiology & biology education, v. 15, n. 2, pp. 146-150.

Wager, Elizabeth (2015). “Why are retractions so difficult?”. Science editing, v. 2, n. 1, pp. 32-34.

Wager, Elizabeth; Veitch, Emma (2017). “The role of PubPeer comments in alerting editors to serious problems with clinical research publications”. In: 8th International congress on peer review and scientific publication, Chicago.

Wager, Elizabeth; Williams, Peter (2011). “Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008”. Journal of medical ethics, v. 37, n. 9, pp. 567-570.



Cómo citar

Ortega, J.-L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2023). How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer. Profesional De La información, 32(1).



Artículos de investigación / Research articles


La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.


Cargando métricas ...