Retractions due to ethical violations or lack of approval in medical and allied sciences: an analysis.

Abstract

Scientific studies conducted without adhering to ethical principles or without obtaining necessary approvals may lead to retractions, thereby undermining both scientific credibility and public trust. This study examines Retractions due to Ethical Violations or Lack of Approval (REVLA) in medical and allied disciplines, analyzing the trend over time, classifying the reasons for retractions, and explaining how they are communicated. REVLA published between 2003 and 2022 were identified using Web of Science and Scopus. Reasons for retraction were extracted from the Retraction Watch Database (RWD). A total of 969 articles meeting the criteria were identified. Original research and clinical studies accounted for over 95% of REVLA. The number of retractions increased substantially in the last decade. 37.67% of REVLA are either under a paywall or unavailable on the journal pages. Papers on clinical practice constitute 57.79% of REVLA, followed by biological sciences (20.02%) and cancer research (15.69%). The analysis shows that no publishers or journals are immune to REVLA. Strengthening institutional review boards (IRB), imparting education on research and publication ethics, and ensuring public access to retraction notices and articles are essential to uphold research integrity. Stricter editorial vigilance and peer review are crucial to prevent the publication of ethically compromised studies, thereby reducing the need for future retractions.